.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL

SAFETY AND HEALTH 

+ + + + +

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND

WORKER HEALTH 

+ + + + +

LINDE CERAMICS WORK GROUP

+ + + + +

WEDNESDAY,

SEPTEMBER 2, 2009

+ + + + +

The Work Group meeting convened, 

at 9:30 a.m., in the Zurich Room of the 

Cincinnati Airport Marriott Hotel, 2395 

Progress Drive, Hebron, Kentucky, Genevieve 

Roessler, Chair, presiding.

PRESENT:

GENEVIEVE S. ROESSLER, Chair

JOSIE BEACH, Member

MICHAEL H. GIBSON, Member*
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

2

ALSO PRESENT:

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official

NANCY ADAMS, NIOSH Contractor*

ISAF AL-NABULSI, DOE*

TERRIE BARRIE, ANWAG*

ANTOINETTE BONSIGNORE, Linde Petitioner

NICOLE BRIGGS, SC&A*

CHRIS CRAWFORD, NIOSH OCAS 

LARRY ELLIOTT, NIOSH OCAS

EMILY GUNN, GAO*

MONICA HARRISON-MAPLES, ORAU Team*

EMILY HOWELL, HHS

JOHN MAURO, SC&A*

STEVE OSTROW, SC&A

LAVON RUTHERFORD, NIOSH OCAS

MUTTY SHARFI, ORAU Team

*Present via telephone
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

3

C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S

Call to Order and Welcome 5

 Ted Katz

Introductions 5

SEC 107 Petition Evaluation Report 11

 NIOSH - Chris Crawford

 Questions and Answers 24

 Action Item - LaVon Rutherford 40

 Action Item - Larry Elliott 68

Review of SEC Petition 107 and 71

Petition Evaluation Report

 SC&A - Steve Ostrow

 NIOSH Response 113

 Findings 1, 2, and 3

 Action Item - NIOSH 136

 NIOSH Response 138

 Findings 4, 5, and 6

 Action Item - NIOSH 147

 NIOSH Response 150

 Findings 7, 8, 9, and 10

 Action Item - NIOSH 158

 Action Item - SC&A 158

Petitioner Comments 188

 Antoinette Bonsignore

 Action Item - NIOSH 198
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

4

C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S (CONTINUED)

Action Items - Summarized 199

Site Profile Review Followup 218

Assessment of the Disposition of 219

SC&A's Site Profile Review Issues

 SC&A - Steve Ostrow

 NIOSH Response 236
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

5

1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S

2 9:31 a.m.

3 MR. KATZ: Good morning.

4 This is Ted Katz. I'm the Acting 

5 Designated Federal Official to the Advisory 

6 Board on Radiation and Worker Health. This is 

7 the Linde Work Group. We are convening.

8 We are going to begin with roll 

9 call, as usual, starting with Board members in 

10 the room.

11 For everyone that is agency12 related, please also state your conflict-of13 interest situation. Thank you.

14 So beginning with the Chair.

15 CHAIR ROESSLER: I'm Genevieve 

16 Roessler. I'm Chair of the Linde Work Group 

17 of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

18 Health, and I have no conflicts.

19 MEMBER BEACH: Josie Beach. I am 

20 an Advisory Board member, and I have no 

21 conflicts.

22 MR. KATZ: And then Jim Lockey, 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

6

1 for the record, is not available for this 

2 meeting.

3 And on the phone?

4 MEMBER GIBSON: Mike Gibson, Board 

5 member, no conflict.

6 MR. KATZ: Welcome, Mike.

7 And that does it for Board 

8 members. Do we have any other Board members 

9 on the phone who are not part of the Work 

10 Group?

11 (No response.)

12 And then, for in the room, 

13 starting with the NIOSH/ORAU Team.

14 MR. ELLIOTT: Larry Elliott, 

15 Director of the Office of Compensation 

16 Analysis and Support. I have no conflicts 

17 with Linde.

18 MR. RUTHERFORD: LaVon Rutherford, 

19 Special Exposure Cohort, Health Physics Team 

20 Leader for the Office of Compensation Analysis 

21 and Support, and I have no conflicts.

22 MR. CRAWFORD: Chris Crawford. 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

7

1 I'm a Health Physicist with OCAS, since 

2 everybody else said the long form.

3 (Laughter.)

4 And I have no conflicts.

5 MR. KATZ: And on the line? Oh, 

6 I'm sorry. Mutty Sharfi, sorry.

7 MR. SHARFI: Mutty Sharfi, ORAU 

8 Team. I have no conflicts with Linde.

9 MR. KATZ: Sorry about that. 

10 Thank you.

11 And on the line? NIOSH/ORAU Team, 

12 any?

13 MS. HARRISON-MAPLES: Yes. This 

14 is Monica Harrison-Maples. I'm ORAU Health 

15 Physicist, Team Lead. No conflicts.

16 MR. KATZ: Welcome, Monica.

17 MS. HARRISON-MAPLES: Thank you.

18 MR. KATZ: Okay, and then in the 

19 room, SC&A?

20 DR. OSTROW: Steve Ostrow, Linde 

21 Leader for SC&A. No conflicts.

22 MR. KATZ: And on the line, SC&A?
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

8

1 DR. MAURO: John Mauro, SC&A. No 

2 conflicts.

3 MS. BRIGGS: Nicole Briggs, SC&A. 

4 No conflicts.

5 MR. KATZ: Welcome, both of you.

6 Okay, then other federal employees 

7 or contractors, beginning in the room?

8 MS. HOWELL: Emily Howell, HHS.

9 MR. KATZ: Welcome, Emily.

10 And on the line?

11 MS. ADAMS: Nancy Adams, NIOSH 

12 contractor.

13 MR. KATZ: Welcome, Nancy.

14 MS. AL-NABULSI: Isaf Al-Nabulsi, 

15 DOE.

16 MR. KATZ: Welcome, Isaf.

17 MS. AL-NABULSI: Thanks.

18 MR. KATZ: And we have a crying 

19 child on the line, too, I think. That's not a 

20 federal employee.

21 (Laughter.)

22 And members of the public or staff 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

9

1 of congressional offices, we'll start in the 

2 room with a petitioner.

3 MS. BONSIGNORE: Antoinette 

4 Bonsignore, Linde Ceramics, SEC petitioner.

5 MR. KATZ: Welcome.

6 And on the line, do we have any 

7 petitioners, members of the public, or staff 

8 of congressional offices who would like to 

9 identify themselves?

10 MS. GUNN: Emily Gunn, GAO.

11 MR. KATZ: Emily, welcome.

12 MS. GUNN: Thank you.

13 MS. BARRIE: This is Terrie 

14 Barrie, ANWAG.

15 MR. KATZ: Welcome, Terrie.

16 MS. BARRIE: Good morning.

17 MR. KATZ: Okay, I think that 

18 takes care of participants for now.

19 Let me just remind the folks on 

20 the phone to please mute your phone, except 

21 when you're addressing the group. And if you 

22 don't have a mute button, use *6, and then to 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

10

1 come back off mute, hit *6 again. And if you 

2 need to leave the call, please don't put it on 

3 hold. Just disconnect and call back in. 

4 Otherwise, it will interfere with the call.

5 Okay, having taken care of that, 

6 then let me just also make notice: one of the 

7 petitioners has sent a letter with information 

8 about renovation that went on at Linde. 

9 She's, I guess, not on the line right now, but 

10 she did not give me express permission to read 

11 her statement. She sent it addressed to the 

12 Work Group members, and I have distributed it 

13 to the Work Group members and the supporting 

14 staff.

15 So we'll try to check back in with 

16 her later, if she wants me to read this 

17 statement into the record, but certainly the 

18 participants have it in hand, except for the 

19 other petitioner, at this point. So I just 

20 wanted to make note of that.

21 Gen, it's all yours.

22 CHAIR ROESSLER: Thanks, Ted. 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

11

1 Thank you, everybody.

2 Welcome, Antoinette. I'm glad you 

3 could be here with us.

4 Everyone should have received an 

5 agenda. We sent it out by email on Monday. 

6 And if you don't have it, we have hard copies 

7 here. So, if you need an agenda, just let us 

8 know.

9 So we'll start out, then, with 

10 Chris Crawford, who is ready to talk about the 

11 SEC 107 petition evaluation report.

12 MR. CRAWFORD: I didn't want to 

13 turn the slide projector on when everybody was 

14 introducing themselves. It's a little loud. 

15 It will be up here in a minute.

16 MR. KATZ: Someone on the line, if 

17 you could just mute your phone, *6? Thank 

18 you. Someone on the line has a child, and if 

19 you could mute your phone, please? Use *6 if 

20 you don't have a mute button. Thank you.

21 Okay, we are starting up.

22 Chris?
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

12

1 MR. CRAWFORD: So just a brief 

2 review, especially for those on the phone who 

3 can't see the slides.

4 The petition was received on March 

5 3rd, 2008. The proposed class definition was 

6 all employees in all locations who worked for 

7 the Linde Ceramics plant, Tonawanda, New York, 

8 from January 1st, 1954 to July 31st, 2006.

9 NIOSH qualified the petition on 

10 July 2nd, 2008 because there were no external 

11 or internal monitoring records for the class 

12 itself.

13 The DOE facility database 

14 indicates October 1st, 1942 through December 

15 31st, 1953 as the covered period for the Linde 

16 Ceramics plant.

17 The class evaluated by NIOSH was 

18 all DOE and AWE employees who performed Atomic 

19 Energy Commission work at Linde Ceramics plant 

20 in Tonawanda, New York, from January 1st, 1954 

21 through July 31st, 2006.

22 As I think everybody has figured 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

13

1 out by now, Linde Ceramics plant is located in 

2 Tonawanda, New York. It is a division of 

3 Linde Air Products Corporation. There have 

4 been developments since then. I believe it 

5 has now been taken over by Praxair, that 

6 facility.

7 Linde Ceramics, prior to World War 

8 II, had a history of handling uranium 

9 compounds. They produced U308 and used it as 

10 the basis for dyes for ceramic glazes. Many 

11 famous radioactive plates were made at that 

12 time.

13 In 1942, however, Linde Ceramics 

14 contracted with the Manhattan Engineering 

15 District to process uranium ores to produce 

16 uranium oxides, and later green salt, in a 

17 three-step process.

18 In the thirties, the original 

19 Building 14, which was known as the Tonawanda 

20 Laboratory of Linde Air, and was owned by 

21 Union Carbide -- there's a lot of history 

22 among these companies -- produced U308, as I 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

14

1 mentioned, as a coloring agent for ceramic 

2 glazes. They handled a lot of ores and they 

3 produced 80 tons of U308. That's before the 

4 MED period.

5 Building 14 has been designated an 

6 AWE facility beginning in 1942. In 1942 and 

7 thereafter, the MED erected several other 

8 buildings, 30, 31, 37, and 38, at the site, 

9 which became known as the Linde Ceramics 

10 plant.

11 The MED contracted for the 

12 processing of uranium ores into green salts in 

13 a three-step process, extending from October 

14 1st, 1942 through June 30th, 1949. 

15 Decontamination and decommissioning was done

16 between July 1st, 1949 and July 7th, 1954, 

17 with most of the work done in 1949 and 1950.

18 In terms of available information, 

19 I will go through these fairly quickly. We 

20 have the ORAU Team site profiles and Technical 

21 Information Bulletins and procedures. We did 

22 interviews with former employees, Linde 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

15

1 employees.

2 We had existing claimant files. 

3 We have documentation provided by the 

4 petitioner. We have the NIOSH site research 

5 database, and we have done a series of data 

6 captures.

7 Those efforts, the data capture 

8 efforts, have included Linde Air Products 

9 Corporation, the U.S. Atomic Energy 

10 Commission, the Formerly-Utilized Sites 

11 Remedial Action Program, FUSRAP, which 

12 provided data for the residual period; the Oak 

13 Ridge National Laboratory records; the DOE 

14 Open Net OSTI database.

15 We did an internet search. We 

16 have the DOE Comprehensive Epidemiological 

17 Data Resource, CEDR, and various DOE 

18 locations.

19 In terms of history of the site, 

20 beginning in June 1943, the plant began step21 one processing of various ores. Most of the 

22 processing was on domestic ores. However, 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

16

1 some African ores were also used.

2 Those ores were processed into 

3 U308. About 26,000 metric tons of ore were 

4 processed into about 2,300 tons of U308. The 

5 step-one processing, which is the name for 

6 this operation, was conducted until July 31st, 

7 1946. So, after July of 1946, there were no 

8 more ores in use at Linde. That has no 

9 relevance to the petition at hand, but it does 

10 have some relevance for the TBD.

11 Then step-two processing began, 

12 which was to convert the U308 eventually into 

13 U02. That occurred through March of 1944. It 

14 occurred simultaneously with the ore 

15 processing.

16 Then, for reasons that I'm not 

17 clear about, they stopped producing U02 at 

18 Linde and, instead, sent the U308 offsite and

19 allowed it to be converted offsite. Then it 

20 was shipped back to Linde in drums as U02. 

21 So, after 1946, only U02 was used as a source 

22 material.
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

17

1 Then step-three processing 

2 converted the U02 into green salt, which is 

3 UF4. Most of the U02 was shipped to Linde 

4 from other sites, as I mentioned, in drums. 

5 The step-three processing ended by June of 

6 1949, and then D&D was done July 1949 through 

7 July 1954.

8 There's some overlap of periods 

9 here. Some people may know the SEC petition 

10 begins on January 1st, 1954, but the actual 

11 turnover of the building from the AEC to Linde 

12 occurred in July of 1954.

13 What we did in the TBD for that 

14 was to basically give the higher 

15 decontamination and decommissioning exposures 

16 to workers who were onsite through July of 

17 1954. After that, we are into what is the 

18 residual period.

19 Potential radiation exposures 

20 during the class period, this is the residual 

21 period, we also call it. For internal sources 

22 of exposure, there was radon exposure present 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

18

1 because some of the concrete surfaces of the 

2 building had contamination on the surfaces by 

3 uranium, and including uranium progeny. That 

4 means there was radon emitted from those 

5 surfaces.

6 Then we know that, during 

7 renovation work in Building 30 in the 1960s, 

8 airborne contaminants, at least there was the 

9 potential for the release of further airborne 

10 contamination if the walls and floors were 

11 drilled into or abraded in any way.

12 We do have some -- it's not on the 

13 slide -- but we do have some contracts for 

14 renovation during that period, including plans 

15 which are dated from 1962 to 1967. We are 

16 going to do a little more research into 

17 exactly what was done.

18 Then we have residual airborne 

19 radioactive contaminants throughout the 

20 residual period. These would have been -- I 

21 don't want to prejudge the thing -- but 

22 relatively low-level. In other words, the 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

19

1 fixed contamination that was left after the 

2 decontamination of the walls and the floors 

3 would still have permitted some airborne 

4 material to arise from normal use in the 

5 building.

6 For external sources of exposure, 

7 we have photon and beta exposure from the 

8 residual uranium contamination of the 

9 surfaces. Neutrons were not a significant 

10 source of external exposure to Linde site 

11 personnel.

12 I will note, parenthetically, that 

13 there was no enriched uranium on the site. 

14 They went from ores and oxides at natural 

15 levels of U235.

16 Personal and area monitoring data 

17 for the class period: because the AEC turned 

18 the building over to Linde without limit, 

19 essentially -- they said the building's been 

20 decontaminated, it's yours -- we have no 

21 bioassay data. There was no reason at the 

22 time for anybody to be monitored internally or 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

20

1 externally. Then that is why there is no such 

2 data.

3 The next bullet point is, I 

4 noticed later, not completely correct. We 

5 have general area and breathing zone air 

6 samples during the decontamination period. 

7 Now those would have been much higher than 

8 during the residual period. In other words, 

9 there were people who were sandblasting and 

10 chipping and vacuuming to get the contaminated 

11 material out. So we do have records from that 

12 time of what the airborne contamination levels 

13 were.

14 Later, we had, under the FUSRAP 

15 program, we had various visits to the site. 

16 There was an ORNL visit in 1976 where radon 

17 measurements were taken, and also, we have one 

18 general air sample in Building 30, which was 

19 the most contaminated building on the site.

20 Then, later again, in 1981, 

21 another survey was done of radon sampling, 

22 particularly.
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

21

1 Finally, there was another 

2 remediation period from the FUSRAP people in 

3 the mid-nineties and I believe the late 

4 nineties, too. There's two little split 

5 periods there where we do have some breathing 

6 zone data, but, again, that is for 

7 decontamination workers, not exactly for the 

8 general use of the building. But that is what 

9 we have to work with.

10 On external monitoring data, we 

11 have no film badge or pocket dosimeter data at 

12 all except during the remediation work by the 

13 FUSRAP workers rather than the Linde workers 

14 themselves.

15 There were no area radiation 

16 surveys done during the residual period that 

17 we are aware of, again, other than perhaps 

18 FUSRAP, when they were trying to complete the 

19 remediation work.

20 The evaluation process is very 

21 familiar to the people in this room. There's 

22 a two-prong test established by EEOICPA and 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

22

1 incorporated into 42 CFR 83.13(c)(1) and 42 

2 CFR 83.13(c)(3).

3 The first is, "Is it feasible to 

4 estimate the level of radiation doses of 

5 individual members of the class with 

6 sufficient accuracy?" If the answer to that 

7 is yes, we don't have to answer the second 

8 question. If the answer is no, then the 

9 second question is, "Is there a reasonable 

10 likelihood that such radiation dose may have 

11 endangered the health of members of the 

12 class?"

13 In brief, our finding is that the 

14 available monitoring records, process 

15 descriptions and source term data are adequate 

16 to complete dose reconstructions with 

17 sufficient accuracy for the evaluated class of 

18 employees.

19 So we answered the first question 

20 yes, and we won't be answering the second 

21 question today.

22 Now the feasibility approach, for 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

23

1 internal doses, we have intakes derived from 

2 lognormal distributions for breathing zone and 

3 general area air samples. That, again, is 

4 from the decontamination period. We would use 

5 those to limit the possible dose received for

6 the entire residual period, and in particular, 

7 those will form the basis, the overall basis, 

8 for any periods of construction and remodeling 

9 at Linde in the sixties, as I mentioned 

10 earlier. A geometric mean and standard 

11 deviation were established for those 

12 measurements.

13 Then we have a breathing zone --

14 well, as I just said, breathing zone data can 

15 be, geometric mean and standard deviation can 

16 be used to bound the internal exposure.

17 The ingestion intakes are derived 

18 from deposition and resuspension factors 

19 defined in TBD-6000 and TBD-6001.

20 The external exposures can be 

21 bounded by using the results of surface 

22 contamination measurements at the end of the 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

24

1 D&D period and during FUSRAP activities. 

2 There we have quite a few measurements, 

3 contact measurements, for the fixed 

4 contamination at the site.

5 Our feasibility summary is, for 

6 the SEC period, it is feasible to do internal 

7 dose reconstruction. It is feasible to do 

8 that with uranium and its progeny. It is 

9 feasible to do it with radon. It is feasible 

10 to do external dose reconstruction, including 

11 both gamma and beta sources.

12 So NIOSH's recommendation for the 

13 period of January 1st, 1954 through July 31st, 

14 2006, NIOSH finds that radiation dose 

15 estimates can be reconstructed for 

16 compensation purposes.

17 I'm through with the slides. I 

18 will turn this noisy machine off.

19 CHAIR ROESSLER: Are there any 

20 questions?

21 (No response.)

22 That was a nice presentation, 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

25

1 Chris, to bring us all up-to-date on things. 

2 I do have one question. It is probably in the 

3 documentation, but I don't remember.

4 Why was the period brought up to 

5 January 1954 instead of July 1954, the 

6 beginning of the period? Why was January 

7 picked? And how did that happen? That was 

8 not the petitioner's data, I assume?

9 MR. CRAWFORD: No. I think we 

10 found later that, when we reviewed all the 

11 records, it is not so much that more 

12 decontamination work was done, but the actual 

13 signover of the building from AEC to Linde was 

14 July 7, 1954.

15 We had decided that we would not 

16 revise the SEC petition dates for that period, 

17 but that if we ended up doing dose 

18 reconstructions for the period, that we would 

19 use the higher decontamination levels for that 

20 period, because we don't know exactly who did 

21 what during that final --

22 CHAIR ROESSLER: So the original 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

26

1 SEC petition did have it as January?

2 MR. CRAWFORD: I believe so.

3 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay.

4 MR. CRAWFORD: And that is what we 

5 originally believed, until we got further 

6 documentation.

7 MEMBER BEACH: Chris, I have a 

8 question. You may not know the answer to 

9 this. It's not part of this period, but it 

10 says that 00127 is for preparing 

11 qualification. Do you know what the dates for 

12 that one is going to be?

13 MR. CRAWFORD: Oh, I didn't even 

14 mention that, but 127 was merged into --

15 MEMBER BEACH: One two seven was 

16 merged?

17 MR. CRAWFORD: It was merged into 

18 107.

19 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. I thought 

20 112 was merged.

21 MR. CRAWFORD: That was also 

22 merged into 107.
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

27

1 MEMBER BEACH: Okay.

2 MR. CRAWFORD: I should have 

3 mentioned that.

4 MEMBER BEACH: Then this is 

5 incorrect. It says, "preparing", "preparing 

6 qualification." So all three of those are --

7 MR. CRAWFORD: They are --

8 CHAIR ROESSLER: That is an 

9 older --

10 MEMBER BEACH: That is an older 

11 one?

12 MR. CRAWFORD: Yes.

13 CHAIR ROESSLER: This has been 

14 updated, I think.

15 MEMBER BEACH: What is the update 

16 date? I looked and I couldn't find anything 

17 more recent.

18 MR. RUTHERFORD: Actually, when 

19 that report was issued, Linde was not, that 

20 petition was not merged yet. So, when that 

21 report was issued, it was not merged at that 

22 time.
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

28

1 MEMBER BEACH: Okay.

2 MR. RUTHERFORD: That is why it is 

3 127.

4 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. When you go 

5 look at Linde, it is quite confusing.

6 MR. CRAWFORD: Yes.

7 MEMBER BEACH: That is all the 

8 different things. Okay, so those are all 

9 three merged. Thank you.

10 MR. CRAWFORD: I didn't mention, 

11 the evaluation report actually came out in 

12 November of 2008. We are kind of late in --

13 MEMBER BEACH: Yes. Okay, thank 

14 you.

15 CHAIR ROESSLER: It is confusing, 

16 and that is why your talk helped. I think in 

17 some of Steve Ostrow's documents it also helps 

18 because Steve has been very careful in 

19 documenting the sequence of things.

20 MEMBER BEACH: Yes. I appreciated 

21 that.

22 DR. OSTROW: Chris, so we get it 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

29

1 straight, so I get it straight, so the 

2 petition 112 and 127 were merged into 107?

3 MR. CRAWFORD: That's correct.

4 DR. OSTROW: Okay. And also, the 

5 106 you looked at and decided it wasn't 

6 qualified?

7 MR. CRAWFORD: That is correct.

8 DR. OSTROW: Okay. And there's no 

9 more petitions that you know of for Linde out 

10 there?

11 MR. CRAWFORD: Not that I know of 

12 at the moment.

13 DR. OSTROW: Okay, got it.

14 MR. CRAWFORD: And that certainly 

15 covers the entire period between 106 and 

16 107 --

17 DR. OSTROW: All right.

18 MR. CRAWFORD: -- that isn't 

19 already in a SEC.

20 DR. OSTROW: Yes.

21 MR. CRAWFORD: Now I brought a 

22 hard copy of our response to SC&A's critique, 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

30

1 if I may call it that, of the ER. Does anyone 

2 need a hard copy? Because I sent it kind of 

3 late.

4 MEMBER BEACH: What does it look 

5 like? Oh, I got that this morning.

6 MR. CRAWFORD: Right.

7 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. That's fine.

8 MR. CRAWFORD: Anyone need it?

9 MEMBER BEACH: Unless our reporter 

10 wants one.

11 DR. MAURO: Chris, this is John 

12 Mauro on the line.

13 MR. CRAWFORD: Yes, John.

14 DR. MAURO: What might be helpful 

15 -- and it was for me -- is when you were 

16 discussing the history of the site, beginning 

17 I guess in 1942 to 1949, which is what I 

18 would call the operations period, the MED 

19 operations period, then there's another time 

20 period from 1949 to 1954 that represents a 

21 decon period where there was, I guess -- that 

22 you described verbally.
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

31

1 Then, after 1954, which is the 

2 start of the time period that we are concerned 

3 with here in this particular SEC and 

4 evaluation report, that goes to 2006. But, 

5 within that time period, there were times that 

6 you make reference to remediation periods and 

7 decontamination periods.

8 What I am getting at is, it might 

9 -- I don't know if it is possible, if there is 

10 a blackboard there -- I know when I was 

11 reviewing this, along with Steve and looking 

12 at it, I found it very useful to have like a 

13 little timeline of where the different break 

14 points were and the time periods, little 

15 arrows, you know, when your data were 

16 obtained.

17 So you actually have like a nice 

18 picture in front of you. Okay, here's the 

19 time period of interest. Here's what went on, 

20 and here's when we grabbed air sampling data 

21 or breathing zone sampling data, et cetera, et 

22 cetera.
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

32

1 That sort of sets what I call an 

2 overarching view of the different periods and 

3 the different kinds of data that you have and 

4 when they were obtained. It really helped me 

5 to understand places where things might be 

6 strong and places where things might be weak. 

7 If that is possible, it might really help 

8 everyone to sort of just quickly sketch it on 

9 a blackboard. I know I have it here in front 

10 of me, but if you think that will be helpful.

11 MR. CRAWFORD: I am going to do 

12 this to a degree from memory, unless, Bomber, 

13 you have that data back?

14 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes, that is what 

15 I was looking to see.

16 MR. CRAWFORD: There is a 1995 to, 

17 I think, 1998 period of FUSRAP, and there is 

18 one other.

19 But I think where we can start is 

20 from, say, July 1st of 1949 to, officially now 

21 July 7th of 1954, which overlaps into our SEC 

22 period. That is the decontamination period.
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

33

1 We have extensive documentation on 

2 that. The Heatherton and Klevin reports, 

3 which I know SC&A has reviewed, are pretty 

4 thorough for the time.

5 But, after 1954, the very next 

6 information we get is in 1976 ORNL came to the 

7 site. I believe that was part of the FUSRAP 

8 beginning activities. They did a radon survey 

9 and an airborne contamination survey. We can 

10 comment more on that later.

11 Then, in 1981, we think -- I think 

12 the report was 1982, but I think the data was 

13 gathered in 1981 -- there was a contractor 

14 that came back for FUSRAP, and they did 

15 another radon survey. As far as I know, they 

16 didn't do airborne at that time.

17 Then, Bomber, was it 1995 to --

18 MEMBER BEACH: Chris, is this on 

19 page 17 of 35? I think that is pretty much 

20 the same list you are going through.

21 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes, that is what 

22 I am pulling out right now.
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

34

1 MEMBER BEACH: Yes. It is on page 

2 17 of your ER report.

3 MR. RUTHERFORD: I can't remember 

4 if I had it.

5 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

6 MR. CRAWFORD: Well, we've got 

7 several dates here. I will mention, and I 

8 don't know if we need to put them up here, in 

9 August of 1981 Building 37 was demolished. So 

10 it is no longer in the picture as of August of 

11 1981.

12 Then, from 1988 to 1992, we have a 

13 FUSRAP remediation period. Now I don't 

14 believe that means they were there for four 

15 continuous years bothering Linde. But, during 

16 that period, they were probably there for 

17 various visits.

18 Now, by that late in time, any 

19 remediation work done would have been tightly 

20 controlled and done with airborne contaminants 

21 and people in the buildings, the workers that 

22 did the decontamination would have been 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

35

1 monitored, and so forth, unlike the fifties, 

2 where it was a little bit sketchier.

3 Then, in 1998 -- again, I won't 

4 write it up here -- Building 30 was 

5 demolished. So that is out of the picture in 

6 1998.

7 Then, in 2004, Building 14 was 

8 vacated for demolition, and in June of 2004, 

9 it was demolished. So 14 is gone also by that 

10 time.

11 Building 31 is now occupied and 

12 used for office space at the moment.

13 MEMBER BEACH: You know, Chris, on 

14 page 14, it is the activities operations of 

15 Linde.

16 MR. CRAWFORD: Yes.

17 MEMBER BEACH: It is the same 

18 stuff you are going over. It would be nice if 

19 those two tables were combined and it would 

20 give us a really good overall picture of both 

21 events.

22 MR. CRAWFORD: Right. That is a 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

36

1 building-by-building description --

2 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

3 MR. CRAWFORD: -- of what was 

4 going on.

5 MEMBER BEACH: And when they were 

6 demolished.

7 MR. CRAWFORD: Right. Certainly, 

8 we could do that.

9 MS. BONSIGNORE: If I could just 

10 make a brief comment, Building 31 has actually 

11 been demolished.

12 MR. CRAWFORD: Yes.

13 MS. BONSIGNORE: But I believe you 

14 just said it was currently being used. 

15 Maybe --

16 MEMBER BEACH: Well, it says, 

17 "Currently used for maintenance activities, 

18 offices."

19 MR. CRAWFORD: Right, Building 31. 

20 Sorry. Yes.

21 MS. BONSIGNORE: Thirty was 

22 demolished.
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

37

1 MR. CRAWFORD: Thirty was 

2 demolished --

3 MS. BONSIGNORE: Right.

4 MR. CRAWFORD: -- and 38.

5 MS. BONSIGNORE: Right, and 

6 Building 31 was just demolished this past 

7 February.

8 MR. CRAWFORD: Oh, well, that was 

9 after the date of the report.

10 MS. BONSIGNORE: Right. Well, I 

11 just wanted to clarify that.

12 MR. CRAWFORD: Right. So it's 

13 gone, too, now.

14 MS. BONSIGNORE: It's gone, yes.

15 CHAIR ROESSLER: What prompted the 

16 ORNL, in 1976, what prompted them to go in and 

17 make the measurements?

18 MR. RUTHERFORD: I believe that 

19 was driven by the preparation prior to doing 

20 FUSRAP, the FUSRAP things. ORNL was 

21 contracted by a number of sites or contracted 

22 to do that preliminary work for a number of 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

38

1 sites, not just Linde. So that was the 

2 driver. We have seen that on quite a few 

3 sites.

4 MR. ELLIOTT: Could Linde continue 

5 to process uranium in any of this time frame? 

6 They stopped processing the uranium after 

7 1949?

8 MR. CRAWFORD: As far as we know, 

9 yes.

10 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes.

11 MR. ELLIOTT: So they weren't 

12 still making --

13 DR. OSTROW: I think they decided 

14 by then it wasn't a good idea.

15 MR. CRAWFORD: Yes.

16 MR. ELLIOTT: So we are talking 

17 about the residual contamination from the MED 

18 activity --

19 MR. CRAWFORD: That is correct.

20 MR. ELLIOTT: -- and the AEC work, 

21 not from any other commercial work at this 

22 time?
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

39

1 MR. CRAWFORD: Right.

2 CHAIR ROESSLER: Are there any 

3 further questions?

4 MS. BONSIGNORE: I actually have 

5 another question. You mentioned, Chris, that 

6 there are some contracts that NIOSH is 

7 reviewing for the renovation work from 1962 to 

8 1968, I believe you said?

9 MR. CRAWFORD: Right, to see if we 

10 can further define it. Now those will not be 

11 accompanied by any radiation measurements.

12 MS. BONSIGNORE: Right, I 

13 understand that.

14 MR. CRAWFORD: Okay. But which 

15 buildings were done and when they were done, 

16 we are hoping to get that information.

17 MS. BONSIGNORE: Right. How would 

18 I get access to those contracts? Would I have 

19 to submit a FOIA request?

20 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes.

21 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay.

22 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes, you would.
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

40

1 MS. BONSIGNORE: And how would I 

2 define that request because sometimes it --

3 MR. ELLIOTT: That's a good 

4 question.

5 MS. BONSIGNORE: -- becomes 

6 problematic?

7 MR. RUTHERFORD: Right. We can 

8 help you on that.

9 MR. ELLIOTT: We can help you on 

10 that.

11 MR. RUTHERFORD: I will take that 

12 action.

13 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay.

14 MR. ELLIOTT: We can give you the 

15 specific titles or the dates of the report --

16 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay.

17 MR. ELLIOTT: -- that would focus 

18 your request.

19 MS. BONSIGNORE: Great. Thank 

20 you.

21 MR. CRAWFORD: Needless to say, I 

22 haven't seen those documents myself, but ORAU 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

41

1 informed me recently that they have just 

2 discovered the documents. So I don't even 

3 have the titles myself.

4 MS. BONSIGNORE: In one of the 

5 data capture --

6 MR. CRAWFORD: Yes, I believe one 

7 that came over recently.

8 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay. Because I 

9 did make a FOIA request for all the data 

10 capture efforts that have occurred to date.

11 MR. ELLIOTT: To the date of your 

12 request, right?

13 MS. BONSIGNORE: Right.

14 MR. ELLIOTT: I don't know when 

15 these came in.

16 MS. BONSIGNORE: Right. Right.

17 MR. ELLIOTT: It may be post-your 

18 request.

19 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay.

20 MR. RUTHERFORD: I will look into 

21 that, too, on the dates and see. Either way, 

22 I will work with you to get this.
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

42

1 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay. All right. 

2 Thank you.

3 MR. ELLIOTT: The ORAU Team has a 

4 continuous data capture effort ongoing, not 

5 for this site, but for other sites. We find 

6 in some of those situations we get data for 

7 other sites.

8 MS. BONSIGNORE: Right.

9 MR. ELLIOTT: It seems like that 

10 probably happened here.

11 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay.

12 CHAIR ROESSLER: I think we should 

13 point out, for those who are the phone, that 

14 the material that Chris just put on the board, 

15 as Josie pointed out, is actually in the 

16 petition evaluation report, the November 3rd, 

17 2008 one, on page 17. Then, also, on page 14 

18 of that report is a good summary of the 

19 activities in the various buildings. So we 

20 actually do have a paper copy of that 

21 material.

22 MEMBER BEACH: That is not really 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

43

1 clear, though. It talks about when these were 

2 D&Ded, when they were demolished, and a little 

3 bit of what they did, but it doesn't really go 

4 into time periods of what happened in between.

5 Like in Building 30, what occurred 

6 in Building 30 between 1950, when they D&Ded 

7 that building, and 1998, when they demolished 

8 it? There's a couple of sentences that say 

9 kind of processing, but it is really unclear 

10 when that processing occurred.

11 So I guess I am real curious if we 

12 can come up with a timeline of exactly what 

13 occurred and better answer --

14 MR. CRAWFORD: Do you mean in 

15 terms of government activity?

16 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

17 MR. CRAWFORD: Right.

18 MEMBER BEACH: Because going back 

19 and forth, I mean I could probably piece 

20 something together.

21 MR. CRAWFORD: Right. Well, I 

22 haven't actually seen the FUSRAP documents yet 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

44

1 myself, which would give us a record of what 

2 buildings they worked in. Their workers would 

3 have been badged for radiation exposure. They 

4 would have taken air sample measurements 

5 during their decontamination efforts. They 

6 would have made measurements before and after. 

7 But I don't have that data right now.

8 MEMBER BEACH: Okay.

9 MR. CRAWFORD: That is very late 

10 in the period. As you know, most of it was in 

11 the late eighties/early nineties. So we will 

12 get that data.

13 DR. MAURO: This is John Mauro 

14 again.

15 The only reason I brought this up 

16 was that I know that you folks have relied 

17 heavily on a lot of the data gathered in 1976 

18 and 1981, and that data collected in certain 

19 buildings during the FUSRAP activities, I 

20 believe the FUSRAP activities prior to them, 

21 and over the course of remediation work, et 

22 cetera, when the FUSRAP took place.
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

45

1 Knowing when those samples were 

2 collected and in what buildings and what types 

3 of samples were collected, especially if you 

4 are going to be relying on it heavily, which I 

5 believe you have, for reconstructing exposures 

6 from 1954 up to that time period, to a certain 

7 degree, you have relied on those data. Having 

8 a full appreciation of that data and what 

9 buildings that are reflected in the time 

10 period, I thought to be very important.

11 You will see, when we actually get 

12 into our discussions, those are some of the 

13 areas where I think we have some issues.

14 MR. CRAWFORD: Right, and if we 

15 find in the FUSRAP data anything that leads us 

16 to doubt the earlier data, of course, we will 

17 be bringing it up. But we need to evaluate 

18 that FUSRAP data at this point.

19 DR. MAURO: But am I correct, 

20 though, that when you refer to -- for example, 

21 you will see we will get into this, and I'm 

22 sorry to do this, jump ahead. We will be 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

46

1 getting into radon measurements made in 1976 

2 and 1981. I believe there are some air 

3 particulate measurements also made in that 

4 time period. I'm not sure that that is FUSRAP 

5 data, but it is data collected at that time 

6 period, and that was of great use to you in 

7 addressing these issues.

8 That is the only reason I brought 

9 it up, because I think we are going to be 

10 zeroing in on that data and how it is used.

11 MR. CRAWFORD: Yes, understood.

12 CHAIR ROESSLER: Are there any 

13 more questions or are we ready for Steve 

14 Ostrow's response?

15 MR. RUTHERFORD: I want to qualify 

16 one thing, too. The FUSRAP data may or may 

17 not have film badge data. Film badge would be 

18 depending upon what actual levels of 

19 contamination existed and the dose rates, and 

20 such. I mean it may warrant it, based on the 

21 criteria for badging, that the dose rates were 

22 low enough that they would not have badged 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

47

1 people.

2 So I wanted to qualify because, 

3 since we haven't looked at that and haven't 

4 seen that, I want to qualify that there may or 

5 may not be film badge data there. We need to 

6 look at that.

7 MS. BONSIGNORE: If I could just 

8 get clarification. So NIOSH has not reviewed 

9 the FUSRAP data, which may or may not 

10 contain --

11 MR. RUTHERFORD: This is the 1988 

12 to 1992 data he is talking about.

13 MS. BONSIGNORE: Right. Right. 

14 And you haven't reviewed the contracts that 

15 would detail the renovation work from 1962 to 

16 1968?

17 I am just trying to get a clear 

18 picture of just how much information you have 

19 not reviewed. Is that correct?

20 MR. CRAWFORD: Yes. The contract 

21 information in the sixties would be used to 

22 possibly narrow our use of elevated dose. As 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

48

1 it is, since we don't know when the 

2 renovations occurred, basically, the entire 

3 decade of the sixties has been set aside as a 

4 time of elevated dose.

5 MS. BONSIGNORE: Well, the reason 

6 I make that comment is because I'm sorry to 

7 jump ahead here, but I was struck by your 

8 report here on finding No. 7, that you said 

9 there's no reason to believe that 

10 decontamination techniques employed during 

11 building decon would be part of building 

12 renovation.

13 I know that, as part of our 

14 petition, we submitted affidavits from workers 

15 who conducted renovation work during the 

16 1960s, particularly in Building 30, who 

17 detailed exactly the type of renovation work 

18 that they did, which included jackhammering 

19 floors, which created a significant amount of 

20 dust. A number of workers have attested to 

21 that fact.

22 So, in terms of actual information 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

49

1 that you have from people who were there about 

2 the type of renovation work that happened 

3 during the 1960s, there is some information 

4 about that.

5 So I am somewhat confused as to 

6 why, unless I am misreading this, that you are 

7 saying that there was no pneumatic hammering 

8 done during that time period.

9 MR. CRAWFORD: I think we couldn't 

10 make that claim. I believe it is a matter of 

11 degree.

12 What was the purpose of the 

13 pneumatic hammering? In 1950, they were 

14 hammering extensive areas of the floors and 

15 walls, removed the top 16th or 8th of an inch 

16 of concrete because it was contaminated.

17 Now, if you are doing a building 

18 renovation, you might need a jackhammer to 

19 drill a hole in your floor or your wall. 

20 Maybe you want to anchor something to it or 

21 put a drain pipe in that isn't already there.

22 So we would certainly not deny 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

50

1 that such work was done, but the degree of the 

2 work and the purpose of the work wouldn't have 

3 been expected to levitate as much material as 

4 the original 1950s decon work. And after all, 

5 the purpose of the fifties work was to remove 

6 the contaminated material. So we have to 

7 assume that there was far less material 

8 embedded in the walls in 1960 than there was 

9 in 1950.

10 MS. BONSIGNORE: Yes, I understand 

11 that, but the fact that the buildings, all of 

12 the MED/AEC buildings were eventually 

13 demolished, and the fact that there is data 

14 that there was contamination in those 

15 buildings, wouldn't you agree that there was 

16 obviously residual -- still contamination 

17 there? So the people who were doing, 

18 particularly in Building 30, renovation work 

19 that involved jackhammering for months at a 

20 time, which the affidavits that I submitted 

21 attest to, that would have created a 

22 significant amount of airborne contamination 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

51

1 that people inhaled and ingested.

2 MR. RUTHERFORD: I think we have 

3 taken that into consideration. I think if you 

4 look at the sixties -- and correct me if I am 

5 wrong -- we have taken into consideration an 

6 elevated dose rate or elevated intakes for 

7 that period because of the renovation 

8 activities.

9 I think the point that Chris was 

10 trying to make was that those activities are 

11 not going to be any higher than what the 

12 activities that occurred in the 1950 to 1954 

13 period, when the actual purpose of the 1950 to 

14 1954 period was D&D, decontamination and 

15 decommissioning.

16 So I think that is the point he is 

17 making. It is not that there wasn't exposure 

18 potential. He is just making that point that 

19 there is a level of difference there.

20 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay.

21 DR. OSTROW: SC&A would like to 

22 say, since we have jumped ahead, we share 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

52

1 Antoinette's concern on this very much.

2 I hear what NIOSH is saying, that 

3 when you are doing renovations, it is less 

4 extensive than when you are actually doing 

5 D&D. But there is a potential, when you are 

6 doing the renovation, to hit areas that you 

7 didn't hit during the original D&D work, that 

8 all of a sudden you are opening up a wall on 

9 top of a beam or something, where you have 40 

10 years of radioactive dust sitting that you 

11 didn't see before.

12 I mean, there's a lot of things 

13 when you are doing renovation, that you open 

14 up walls to do this, that, and the other 

15 thing, that you could have had pockets of 

16 radioactive material that you didn't encounter 

17 before.

18 So, in general, maybe there is 

19 less radioactivity, but you could still hit 

20 specific areas where you actually had higher 

21 exposures than you had during the original D&D 

22 period.
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

53

1 MR. RUTHERFORD: From a chronic 

2 intake, though, that would not make sense. It 

3 would make sense more that, from a chronic 

4 intake, that over the period of time the 

5 levels in the 1950 to 1954 period are going to 

6 be much higher than what would be anticipated 

7 in the sixties period.

8 I agree with you on a D&D, I mean 

9 that when you hit the renovation or when they 

10 were doing the D&D, that there were areas --

11 obviously, they are doing surfaces, exposed 

12 surfaces, and such, that if there were areas 

13 that they couldn't reach during D&D or that 

14 were not necessarily recognized, they could 

15 potentially hit those during renovation.

16 However, that is just going to be 

17 a short, little period they are going to hit 

18 that. From the intake model, it is really 

19 going to have a minimal effect.

20 DR. OSTROW: Well, just a little 

21 personal experience, right now, we are 

22 renovating our apartment. This has been going 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

54

1 on like for 10 months already. Part of it is 

2 we have marble floor all over, and they 

3 jackhammered that and they removed that and 

4 they put down a wood floor. But there was 

5 dust everywhere.

6 MR. RUTHERFORD: Sure.

7 DR. OSTROW: I mean it is like 

8 literally every surface of the apartment was 

9 covered with dust. And I guess it was similar 

10 to if you start jackhammering a concrete 

11 floor. During renovation, you may actually do 

12 extensive work on the floors, you know, 

13 jackhammering it, taking off the floor, 

14 putting down a new surface. There's a huge 

15 amount of dust in this.

16 So SC&A does share Antoinette's 

17 concern on this issue. I don't think it is 

18 closed yet.

19 CHAIR ROESSLER: I think we did 

20 jump ahead, but it was important, and it was 

21 important to bring it up now.

22 I think, as we get to that point 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

55

1 later on, we need to make a point that we are 

2 talking about maybe a short-term versus 

3 chronic, and it needs to be clarified.

4 MS. BONSIGNORE: And the bioassay 

5 data that you have is not really from the D&D 

6 period. Isn't the bioassay data limited from 

7 1949 to 1950?

8 MR. CRAWFORD: Well, we had 

9 bioassay data from 1947 on for the production 

10 period, the step-three production period.

11 MS. BONSIGNORE: Right.

12 MR. CRAWFORD: In the D&D period, 

13 I'm not so sure.

14 Mutty, do you --

15 MR. SHARFI: I don't think we have 

16 any, not bioassay.

17 MS. BONSIGNORE: Right. So the 

18 renovation workers who were doing this 

19 renovation during the 1960s who weren't 

20 provided with any respiratory protection 

21 equipment, anything at all --

22 MR. CRAWFORD: Do we know that?
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

56

1 MS. BONSIGNORE: Well, yes.

2 MR. CRAWFORD: Because even the --

3 MR. RUTHERFORD: It doesn't 

4 matter. Our exposure model does not take into 

5 consideration respiratory protection anyway. 

6 We've never taken it into consideration.

7 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay. Well --

8 MR. CRAWFORD: Just 

9 parenthetically, let me say that in the 1950s 

10 the engineer noted that, if they were going to 

11 be sandblasting, that they needed protection 

12 from the silica more than they needed 

13 protection from the radiation.

14 So it wasn't that the idea of 

15 protection was unknown in those days, but in 

16 any case we are not taking that into account. 

17 MS. BONSIGNORE: Right.

18 MR. CRAWFORD: We are not alleging 

19 that somebody wore a mask.

20 MS. BONSIGNORE: Right. Well, 

21 just to clarify the point, the workers who 

22 were there during the 1960s who are 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

57

1 miraculously still alive were never provided 

2 with any respiratory protection during 

3 renovation work. I just wanted to make that 

4 point.

5 But the fact that there is no 

6 bioassay data for the D&D period and there is 

7 no bioassay data for the renovation period, 

8 doesn't that limit your ability to determine 

9 the amount of intake and ingestion of uranium, 

10 uranium progeny, radon, in terms of not being 

11 able to monitor that level in, let's say, 

12 urinalysis data?

13 MR. CRAWFORD: Well, we have to 

14 infer the possible dose, you might say.

15 MS. BONSIGNORE: Well, I 

16 understand that.

17 MR. CRAWFORD: Right.

18 MS. BONSIGNORE: That's what you 

19 do.

20 MR. CRAWFORD: In other words, 

21 because we can't measure, since in the sixties 

22 there was basically no reason for them to have
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

58

1 done bioassays, and we have no data. But we 

2 do have some idea of what the source term was, 

3 and we have a good idea of what kind of 

4 resuspension we can expect under normal 

5 circumstances and what a heightened 

6 resuspension would look like, because we did 

7 the D&D work.

8 So we are making reasoned 

9 estimates of the amount of material in the 

10 air, and then we apply that to people's 

11 breathing rates and exposure times.

12 MS. BONSIGNORE: Yes, but without 

13 bioassay data, isn't it very difficult to 

14 truly reconstruct dose for a worker who 

15 ingested or inhaled uranium during that time 

16 period?

17 MR. CRAWFORD: This is why it is 

18 called dose reconstruction.

19 MS. BONSIGNORE: I understand.

20 MR. CRAWFORD: If we had exact 

21 data on every worker's exposure 24 hours a 

22 day, we could do a much better job. But it 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

59

1 was recognized when this law was passed that 

2 we were going to have to make scientific and 

3 reasoned estimates of exposures.

4 MR. RUTHERFORD: And I would like 

5 to add, yes, bioassay for individuals will 

6 tell us, their individual exposure will help 

7 us in that.

8 What we do, in the absence of 

9 bioassay data, we move down a different 

10 hierarchy for dose reconstruction. We look at 

11 what personal or area monitoring data we have, 

12 and then we develop a model that we feel will 

13 bound the exposures to all those workers. We 

14 feel that that model we developed does do 

15 that.

16 MR. ELLIOTT: We would prefer to 

17 have bioassays.

18 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes. Yes, we 

19 would very much prefer bioassay.

20 MS. BONSIGNORE: I understand.

21 MR. ELLIOTT: We would prefer to 

22 have badge data as well as bioassay.
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

60

1 MS. BONSIGNORE: Right. But, just 

2 from the worker perspective and the people who 

3 have developed cancer, lung cancer, other 

4 types of respiratory cancer, this is very 

5 difficult for them to comprehend because they 

6 don't understand how -- you know, you show 

7 them one of these petition evaluation reports 

8 or a dose reconstruction report; it might as 

9 well be written in a foreign language to most 

10 folks.

11 So I think in terms of being able 

12 to translate what exactly you are doing that 

13 justifies them not being compensated is lost 

14 here. It is difficult for me, as their 

15 representative, to go back to them and explain 

16 what's going on here, and tell them that this 

17 is reasonable, when they don't think it is 

18 reasonable when they have cancer.

19 Sometimes I think that is lost 

20 here in terms of, you know, you are relying on 

21 models and lognormal distributions. That is 

22 difficult for me to understand, but it is also 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

61

1 very difficult for me to explain to them. I 

2 think sometimes that is lost here.

3 MR. CRAWFORD: The public 

4 perception is difficult to deal with in many 

5 respects. We are dealing with several factors 

6 here.

7 The public tends to not think 

8 about the fact that there is an inherent 

9 background cancer rate. Twenty-five percent 

10 of all Americans die of cancer, 99.99 percent 

11 of them never worked with radioactive 

12 materials.

13 This is the truth. But, of 

14 course, if you personally get cancer and you 

15 feel that you were, at some point during your 

16 working history, exposed to radioactive 

17 materials, you could easily lead to the 

18 conclusion that, therefore, my cancer is 

19 caused by radioactivity. That is what we are 

20 up against.

21 However, we have to look at all 

22 the evidence and consider it. And I think, in 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

62

1 general, the program is extremely liberal. We 

2 try to be.

3 I know right here we are saying no 

4 to someone and that seems illiberal. But, in 

5 general, we are, I think, compensating a great 

6 many people and without epidemiological 

7 evidence to support that.

8 Okay?

9 MS. BONSIGNORE: It is a 66 

10 percent national denial rate on Part B.

11 MR. CRAWFORD: What is the correct 

12 denial rate?

13 MS. BONSIGNORE: What is the 

14 correct denial rate?

15 MR. CRAWFORD: Well, yes. I mean, 

16 if --

17 MR. ELLIOTT: Probably much lower. 

18 In fact, we are much higher, due to our 

19 claimant-favorable approaches, than was ever 

20 predicted by --

21 MS. BONSIGNORE: By DOE, right.

22 MR. ELLIOTT: -- by DOE and DOL in 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

63

1 response to the Congressional Budget Office 

2 and the Office of Management and Budget.

3 We understand the complexity and 

4 trying to communicate effectively to laypeople 

5 about this program. As you say, it is lost on 

6 many folks, and we continue to try in our 

7 communications in various ways to explain what 

8 it is we are doing and how we do it.

9 I don't know that we will ever 

10 achieve a satisfactory level of understanding 

11 in this program. I don't know that Congress 

12 understood that when they passed this law. It 

13 is what it is.

14 We appreciate and welcome any 

15 thoughts about how we can improve our 

16 communications. I think this process of 

17 review and the efforts we strive to be 

18 transparent in our work are attempts to try to 

19 help folks understand what is going on in this 

20 program. And we always want to do better. 

21 CHAIR ROESSLER: Antoinette, is --

22 concentrating on here is the fact that there's 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

64

1 a lack of bioassay data, and NIOSH is relying 

2 on bounding these numbers. I think it is 

3 maybe the bounding or how you come to this 

4 upper estimate, the claimant-friendly 

5 approach, that is maybe not well-understood.

6 Of course, then it gets mixed in 

7 with the statistical things like lognormal. 

8 So I identify with her in that. Maybe the 

9 oral presentation, when you give this to the 

10 Board, it would be good to maybe expand on 

11 that part a little bit.

12 MR. CRAWFORD: Well, 

13 parenthetically, we have already worked many 

14 of the Linde cases, non-SEC cases. Our 

15 approval rate is 46 percent. In other words, 

16 you could look at it the other way, our denial 

17 rate is 54 percent.

18 MR. ELLIOTT: For this site.

19 MR. CRAWFORD: For this site.

20 MS. BONSIGNORE: I don't think 

21 that's accurate.

22 MR. ELLIOTT: I do think it is 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

65

1 accurate.

2 MR. CRAWFORD: That's true, but 

3 not to --

4 MS. BONSIGNORE: I think I checked 

5 the DOL site --

6 MR. ELLIOTT: You can't use the 

7 DOL website to determine how many claims have 

8 been dose reconstructed and compensated 

9 through that process. DOL's website does not 

10 break it down to Part B claims sent to NIOSH.

11 MS. BONSIGNORE: But they do.

12 MR. ELLIOTT: Well, I'll have to 

13 look at that --

14 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay.

15 MR. ELLIOTT: -- because that 

16 number has always been a point of confusion 

17 among people who look at that website. That 

18 number, in my understanding, contains claims 

19 that were denied that were not even eligible.

20 MS. BONSIGNORE: I think you need 

21 to take another look at that site.

22 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes, I will look at 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

66

1 it.

2 MS. BONSIGNORE: It has been 

3 recently--

4 MR. ELLIOTT: Upgraded, yes.

5 MS. BONSIGNORE: -- upgraded.

6 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes, I haven't 

7 looked at it since it has been upgraded.

8 MS. BONSIGNORE: Yes.

9 MR. ELLIOTT: So they may have 

10 changed that.

11 MS. BONSIGNORE: Yes.

12 MR. ELLIOTT: We talked about the 

13 need to get the numbers to make sense, 

14 coincide on both sides.

15 MS. BONSIGNORE: Right.

16 MR. ELLIOTT: So I will look at 

17 that, but I'm sure his numbers are right. I 

18 should have brought my book today, but I 

19 looked at that today, and those percentages he 

20 just spoke about are what we show in our 

21 files.

22 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay. Well, from 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

67

1 my analysis of what's at the DOL site now, I 

2 believe it is around 37 percent.

3 MR. ELLIOTT: Well, I will look 

4 into that.

5 MR. RUTHERFORD: And that may be, 

6 if you took in the total number of cases, you 

7 know, the dose reconstructions we have 

8 completed to date, and this was just pulled --

9 what? --

10 MR. ELLIOTT: On the 27th.

11 MR. RUTHERFORD: -- on the 27th, 

12 yes, it is 46 percent.

13 There are cases, a number of 

14 cases, that have been pulled by DOL. And of 

15 those cases, they could have been pulled for 

16 SEC --

17 MR. ELLIOTT: For another site.

18 MR. RUTHERFORD: -- you know, 

19 other things. Well, in fact, they could have 

20 been pulled for the SEC for the early years at 

21 Linde.

22 MR. ELLIOTT: I will look into 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

68

1 that, but Linde and Bethlehem Steel are our 

2 two sites that have the highest compensation 

3 rate, Bethlehem Steel at 48.3 percent and 

4 Linde at 46.

5 MS. BONSIGNORE: There is just one 

6 other thing, and then I will stop talking. 

7 The point that you made that sometimes people 

8 don't understand that there's a 25 percent 

9 general cancer risk in the general population, 

10 I think they do understand that. I think the 

11 fact that when everybody that they have worked 

12 with has developed cancer, or people that they 

13 worked with have died from cancer, and the 

14 fact that the rate of cancer in western New 

15 York is much higher than the rate it is for 

16 the remainder of the state, I think there is 

17 an obvious elevated rate of cancer in the 

18 western New York population.

19 I think that can be properly 

20 attributed to not only the people who worked 

21 at these sites, but the fact that a lot of 

22 these sites are being -- Linde is still under 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

69

1 FUSRAP and still being decontaminated. There 

2 is a lot of decontamination in the groundwater 

3 and the soil that has been spread throughout 

4 the western New York community, and not only 

5 from Linde and Bethlehem Steel, but also from 

6 the Niagara Falls Storage Site, where there is 

7 a lot of contamination still going on there.

8 MR. ELLIOTT: I think it is a 

9 mistake to say that the higher rates of cancer 

10 in a geographical area are due to one type of 

11 perhaps occupational exposure. Bethlehem 

12 Steel, there are probably only 25 people ever 

13 exposed out of the whole Bethlehem Steel 

14 population, to the rolling mill situation that 

15 happened there.

16 I would rather think at Bethlehem 

17 Steel and at Linde that silica is a worse 

18 actor than uranium. Uranium, in this form, is 

19 not a -- it is what we would call a low-dose 

20 exposure situation. Many people feel that 

21 radiation is radiation, and here we go again. 

22 It is a complexity that people don't 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

70

1 understand. Radiation has different levels of 

2 energy associated with it and different 

3 abilities to either penetrate or cause harm.

4 In this instance, silica in this 

5 site is probably the worse offender from an 

6 occupational exposure than uranium. That is 

7 just trying to put it in context for people to 

8 try to understand. They may not accept that, 

9 but, as an industrial hygienist, I would tell 

10 you that I'm more concerned about silica in 

11 these kinds of operations than I am ever 

12 worried about uranium.

13 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay. I think we 

14 have covered some important background work, 

15 and it never hurts to clarify some of these 

16 things.

17 Should we take a quick break 

18 before Steve talks or should we finish here? 

19 Let's have Steve -- what's the conclusion?

20 DR. OSTROW: Let's take a break.

21 CHAIR ROESSLER: A five-minute 

22 break.
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

71

1 MR. KATZ: We are going to mute 

2 the phones for five minutes.

3 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

4 matter went off the record at 10:37 a.m. and 

5 resumed at 10:44 a.m.)

6 MR. KATZ: We are online again.

7 John, are you there with us?

8 DR. MAURO: Yes, I am.

9 MR. KATZ: And Mike?

10 MEMBER GIBSON: Yes, I'm here.

11 MR. KATZ: Hi. Good.

12 DR. OSTROW: Okay. This is Steve 

13 Ostrow.

14 Just a little bit of background: 

15 the background is that we have the petition, 

16 the SEC 107 petition. NIOSH went ahead and 

17 did their petition evaluation report.

18 Then, in the Albuquerque Board 

19 meeting, we were asked -- that was on February 

20 19th, 2009 -- SC&A was tasked to do two 

21 things: to review the Special Exposure Cohort 

22 Petition 00107, and then also the NIOSH SEC 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

72

1 petition evaluation report, which is what we 

2 have been talking about.

3 We reviewed it. Just to set the 

4 stage here, we subsequently produced a report 

5 that is dated June 18th, 2009, which was the 

6 evaluation for this.

7 In our evaluation, we looked at 

8 these two reports, the petition and the 

9 evaluation report, and we looked at some other 

10 documents and looked into different things, 

11 and came up with a table of 11 findings or 

12 observations, whatever, things that we were 

13 concerned about.

14 As we said in our report, though, 

15 we didn't at this time reach a conclusion 

16 whether NIOSH had sufficient data to do the 

17 dose reconstruction or not, because we 

18 recognize that it is premature to do that. It 

19 is early in the process.

20 We had comments. NIOSH is in the 

21 process of responding to our comments. I am 

22 sure we will go another round or two back and 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

73

1 forth until we can form an opinion and before 

2 the Board, the Work Group, can form its 

3 opinion on the validity of NIOSH's claim that 

4 they can reconstruct the doses for this 

5 period.

6 So that is where we are right now, 

7 and just noting that, in response to our June 

8 18th report, we just received yesterday a 

9 short report from NIOSH, which is a response 

10 to our report, in which NIOSH took our Table 1 

11 from our report, from the SC&A report, where 

12 we have the 11 findings, and gave short 

13 responses in table form to each one of them.

14 We recognize at this point that 

15 NIOSH's response is still in the preliminary 

16 stages. This is not the end-all, final 

17 response.

18 Am I correct that, after this 

19 meeting that we have, that NIOSH is going to 

20 prepare a more detailed response?

21 MR. CRAWFORD: Yes.

22 DR. OSTROW: What's your plans?
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

74

1 MR. CRAWFORD: That is where we 

2 will expand on this.

3 DR. OSTROW: Okay. So that is 

4 what I thought is going to happen.

5 MS. BONSIGNORE: So there will be 

6 another petition evaluation report?

7 MR. CRAWFORD: No. There will be 

8 another response to Steve's/SC&A's critique of 

9 the report.

10 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay.

11 DR. OSTROW: Our report has a lot 

12 of pages in it, but is not really that 

13 complicated. Just to take you through, we 

14 produced a Table 1, which is a summary of the 

15 findings. We have our 11 findings.

16 In the body of the report, we 

17 actually have a discussion of certain issues 

18 that set up these 11 findings. On Table 1, we 

19 reference which section of the report has the 

20 larger discussion.

21 One of the first things we did is 

22 we looked at the SEC petition 107 itself. The 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

75

1 petition brings up a lot of issues, and it is 

2 somewhat repetitious, but we looked through 

3 it. We pulled out of that several themes. We 

4 thought we identified nine different issues 

5 that the petition came up with, and that is in 

6 our Table 2, where we summarize the issues 

7 that were brought up.

8 We put in the next column next to 

9 that, for each issue, looking at NIOSH's SEC 

10 evaluation report, where we thought that NIOSH 

11 dealt with these issues in the petition. 

12 These are our assessments.

13 NIOSH, of course, when they 

14 produce their final response, they are free to 

15 comment on this, too. Did we capture it 

16 correctly, what we thought your responses were 

17 for this?

18 We think this is a good cross19 reference between the issues that were brought 

20 up in the petition and how NIOSH responded to 

21 it.

22 Okay. We found that there were 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

76

1 nine issues that we thought were dealt with. 

2 The one thing that we did note, the petition 

3 brought up the issue, which I think is a 

4 little bit separate from what the Work Group 

5 deals with -- that is not really a radiation 

6 issue -- that several of the buildings were 

7 redesignated as a DOE facility from AWE. That 

8 is the last box on Table 2, an issue to note.

9 This has certain ramifications 

10 about compensation, that it is a DOE facility. 

11 This was not specifically addressed by NIOSH 

12 in their ER report because I don't think that 

13 impacts their dose reconstruction ability. It 

14 is an important issue, but it is a separate 

15 issue from this.

16 I don't think NIOSH deals with 

17 this, right? I'm not sure which agency deals 

18 with this.

19 MR. ELLIOTT: The designation of 

20 the facilities?

21 DR. OSTROW: Yes.

22 MR. ELLIOTT: That's not ours.
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

77

1 DR. OSTROW: Yes, I didn't think 

2 that was yours.

3 MS. BONSIGNORE: Yes, that is DOL.

4 DR. OSTROW: DOL. Okay, they're 

5 the ones that do it.

6 MS. BONSIGNORE: Well, I mean, 

7 they were the ones that initially decided that 

8 the people who worked in the newly9 redesignated buildings wouldn't be eligible 

10 for Part B if they worked during the residual 

11 period.

12 DR. OSTROW: Okay.

13 MS. BONSIGNORE: Then they changed 

14 their mind.

15 DR. OSTROW: Okay. So, anyway, it 

16 is an important issue, but it is not a NIOSH 

17 dose reconstruction issue.

18 MR. ELLIOTT: It is.

19 Go ahead.

20 MR. CRAWFORD: On the TBD, during 

21 the period when the Working Group was working 

22 on the TBD, DOE changed its mind twice. They 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

78

1 first said it is a DOE facility now, and there 

2 is no residual period. So we took our 

3 attention completely away from the residual 

4 period at that point.

5 Then, a year later, approximately, 

6 they turned around and said it is a DOE 

7 facility, but with a residual period. So 

8 we're back.

9 MR. ELLIOTT: But that is because 

10 there is one building that is still is an AWE 

11 facility building.

12 MR. CRAWFORD: Building 14.

13 MR. ELLIOTT: And the other three, 

14 four --

15 MS. BONSIGNORE: Four.

16 MR. ELLIOTT: -- four buildings 

17 are now DOE-determined buildings.

18 DR. OSTROW: Is that because 

19 Building 14 is like one of the original 

20 buildings?

21 MS. BONSIGNORE: Building 14 was 

22 the original, the Tonawanda lab was the 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

79

1 original Linde facility, and then the 

2 remaining four buildings, 30, 31, 37, and 38, 

3 were constructed under AEC.

4 DR. OSTROW: Okay. So Building 14 

5 is where they were producing the glaze for the 

6 pottery?

7 MS. BONSIGNORE: Right, the great 

8 pottery that --

9 MR. ELLIOTT: So, if I can finish, 

10 where that leaves us is -- and correct me if 

11 I'm wrong, Chris, Mutty, or Bomber -- because 

12 DOL cannot discern who worked in which 

13 building, all claims are going to have to have 

14 a residual dose if they had employment during 

15 the residual period. So we are not going to 

16 be able to distinguish among claimants who 

17 gets a residual contamination dose and who 

18 doesn't. So everybody who had time in that 

19 period will get a dose in the residual period.

20 DR. OSTROW: Thanks for the 

21 clarifications. I looked at it, and I was 

22 really confused about what happened.
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

80

1 MR. ELLIOTT: So were we.

2 (Laughter.)

3 MS. BONSIGNORE: So was I.

4 DR. OSTROW: So was everybody.

5 MR. ELLIOTT: I think everybody 

6 but DOL was for a while.

7 DR. OSTROW: Okay. So we know 

8 that then.

9 All right. Then, just since we 

10 are on that Table 2, we note at the bottom of 

11 that the petition brought up -- well, there's 

12 one extra issue. We have an Appendix B that 

13 the petitioner, Antoinette, in a memo of June 

14 4th, 2009, to SC&A, and I think NIOSH also, 

15 had a petition which attached to a memorandum, 

16 1944, that asserts that the African ore, the 

17 pitchblende feedstock, was actually a higher 

18 concentration, up to 65 percent concentration, 

19 than NIOSH assumed in its site profile, which 

20 was about 8 to 12 percent of the U308.

21 So we looked at it also in the 

22 appendix, and it is attached as Appendix B to 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

81

1 this.

2 But this we looked at, whether or 

3 not that it is true that the feedstock was at 

4 a higher concentration than NIOSH assumed. 

5 NIOSH didn't actually use that information in 

6 its dose reconstruction anyway because the 

7 dose reconstruction is based on actual 

8 measurements, the different surveys that were 

9 taken at different periods of time.

10 So we didn't focus on whether the 

11 feedstock information was correct or 

12 incorrect, because it is sort of irrelevant to 

13 the way NIOSH did it. If, in the future, 

14 NIOSH changes its dose reconstruction 

15 technique to sort of first principles by 

16 looking at the original ore source terms, and 

17 does the calculation that way, then this 

18 becomes an important issue. But, for now, it 

19 is not an issue at all to deal with.

20 MR. CRAWFORD: Steve, just a brief 

21 response on that.

22 DR. OSTROW: Yes?
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

82

1 MR. CRAWFORD: My understanding is 

2 that we established that there was one ton of 

3 65 percent ore that was sent to Linde, and 

4 they were to prepare a sample that I believe 

5 was to be sent on, and I forget to what 

6 establishment, not that that is important. 

7 But I think they took 100 pounds of that and 

8 sent it out.

9 It is not clear that the rest of 

10 the ore was processed by Linde or returned to 

11 the MED. We don't know. But, considering 

12 there were 26,000 tons of ore processed, the 

13 effect on the total dose for everyone 

14 concerned, we felt was going to be 

15 minuscule --

16 DR. OSTROW: Okay.

17 MR. CRAWFORD: -- if it was or was 

18 not processed at Linde.

19 DR. OSTROW: So, basically, to 

20 clarify, it is based on what you can see at 

21 this higher concentration. Ore at 65 percent 

22 was just used to prepare a sample. That is 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

83

1 what it looks like.

2 MR. CRAWFORD: That is what the 

3 documentation shows.

4 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes. In fact, 

5 there's documentation that suggests that, 

6 because of the -- I mean this is really 

7 outside the scope of this, but that it 

8 suggests that the actual radiation levels and 

9 such and the controls that would have to be 

10 put in place, they decided they did not want 

11 to go ahead and process that.

12 DR. OSTROW: Okay. But, as I said 

13 at the beginning, as of now, the way NIOSH is 

14 doing its dose reconstruction, this is not a 

15 material issue anyway.

16 Finally, just as an overview of 

17 what we did when we looked at this, we have a 

18 really long appendix, Appendix A, which helped 

19 us. It is not directly relevant to all of the 

20 conclusions.

21 But what happened originally, we 

22 had reviewed Revision 0 of the TBD. I think 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

84

1 the petition was also in response to Revision 

2 0 of the TBD.

3 Subsequent to that, NIOSH produced 

4 a Rev 0 page change, which was just minor 

5 changes, and then, finally, a Revision 1, 

6 which made major changes.

7 Just, as an aid to SC&A, and 

8 perhaps the Board, if they want to look at it, 

9 we just went ahead and compared Rev 0 and Rev 

10 1, went through it thoroughly, just to see 

11 where the changes were made.

12 So we see this as sort of a 

13 reference document, if anyone wants to see how 

14 some of these issues or some of the 

15 methodologies evolved one revision to the 

16 other. It didn't help -- it wasn't used 

17 directly in this report, but it helps us as 

18 background information, as a resource.

19 Okay. Now, moving on to our 

20 findings, we have now, as I mentioned before, 

21 Table 1, which summarizes the findings. This 

22 is what NIOSH used yesterday to respond to our 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

85

1 findings.

2 Of our 11 findings, we can group 

3 them to some extent. Our findings are 

4 concerned, a few of them with radon exposures. 

5 This was during the period like 1954 to 2006, 

6 more or less to present.

7 We were concerned about airborne 

8 particulates. That is, you know, things like 

9 uranium, thorium, radium, whatever, during the 

10 period like 1954 to 1976, before the surveys 

11 were done.

12 We also have some issues, have a 

13 concern with the so-called renovation period 

14 and what we can call like the factor-of-eight 

15 issue, which comes up in one -- that is sort 

16 of grouping it for convenience.

17 John, if you are still on the 

18 phone, did I get that right?

19 DR. MAURO: Yes. I found, in 

20 these matters where we have a relatively long 

21 list of findings, sometimes conceptually I 

22 see, for example, findings 1, 2, and 3 really 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

86

1 deal with radon and some of the concerns we 

2 have with the model that was developed for 

3 assigning radon exposures to workers.

4 Then there is a group after that 

5 -- I think 3 or 4 or so. So, in essence, we 

6 have some concerns on how 4, 5, and 6, I 

7 believe it is, and perhaps group 7, I'm not 

8 sure -- I have to look at it again -- but 

9 dealing with inhalation of uranium, radium and 

10 thorium particulate material, the data on 

11 which that is based and the extrapolations and 

12 assumptions.

13 Then, the last group, I think it 

14 comes up to No. 10, and that is 8, 9, and 10, 

15 deals with this renovation period and how to 

16 deal with those exposures. Quite frankly, 11 

17 was really, the way I saw that, is a matter of 

18 just making a little clearer what these 

19 different time periods are. So it is really 

20 not a finding. It is really a suggestion that 

21 would be very helpful, and we talked quite a 

22 bit about that at the beginning of this 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

87

1 meeting, making it clear what buildings, what 

2 time periods, what was going on.

3 Because I know I found it 

4 difficult to navigate my way through it as I 

5 was reading the material, and the discussion 

6 we had earlier was certainly helpful.

7 So 11, I guess, if you agree, I 

8 think 11 is really not a technical issue. It 

9 is really a matter of communication.

10 DR. OSTROW: Okay. So, working 

11 backwards, I agree with John that our No. 11 

12 is more of a clarification issue than any 

13 technical issue.

14 Hey, Gen, how should I handle 

15 this? Shall I go through the findings, do you 

16 think, and NIOSH's responses?

17 CHAIR ROESSLER: I think you need 

18 to clarify. I think we are clear on Table 1, 

19 and it seems like there are three categories 

20 that we can keep in our minds, the radon, the 

21 inhalation, which is numbers 4, 5, and 6, and 

22 then the renovation period. So we are really 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

88

1 talking about three different categories here.

2 I guess did you then want to --

3 MR. CRAWFORD: Gen?

4 CHAIR ROESSLER: Yes?

5 MR. CRAWFORD: Just one comment: 

6 as Mutty reminds me, I misspoke, overpromised, 

7 about the FUSRAP data. We don't have it at 

8 the moment. We have reason to believe it 

9 exists someplace. We are trying to get it 

10 from the Army Corps of Engineers, but we 

11 actually don't have it in our possession. So 

12 we don't have those measurements from the late 

13 eighties to the late nineties.

14 MEMBER BEACH: What about the 

15 early years? Do you have the early years?

16 MR. CRAWFORD: Yes. Yes. By 

17 early years, do you mean the fifties?

18 MEMBER BEACH: No. I would have 

19 to look back at this chart, the 1981 --

20 MR. CRAWFORD: We do have the 1976 

21 and 1981 data, yes.

22 MEMBER BEACH: Okay.
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

89

1 MR. CRAWFORD: Yes.

2 CHAIR ROESSLER: But you don't 

3 have the 1988 to 1992 in hand?

4 MR. CRAWFORD: The remediation 

5 period, we do not. Sometimes you know that 

6 someone has that data, but that doesn't mean 

7 you can lay your hands on it, as we have 

8 discovered. And working with the Corps of 

9 Engineers is not so simple.

10 DR. OSTROW: Do you know the data 

11 actually exists, though, even though you don't 

12 have it in your possession? Is there data?

13 MR. CRAWFORD: It should at that 

14 period, but we have no indication that it 

15 actually exists.

16 DR. OSTROW: Okay.

17 MEMBER BEACH: So does your data 

18 go back to 1975 that you have now? Because 

19 that is the date when that -- or I guess it 

20 says 1976.

21 MR. CRAWFORD: Yes, data reports 

22 are a little later, but it is 1976, 1982, we 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

90

1 think of it.

2 MEMBER BEACH: Okay.

3 MR. CRAWFORD: When the 

4 measurements were actually taken may have been 

5 a little earlier.

6 DR. MAURO: Excuse me. This is 

7 John.

8 So the 1976, 1982, is that also 

9 considered part of the remediation period, but 

10 that is now separate from this FUSRAP cleanup 

11 part? What is the distinction between the 

12 remediation going on in the 1976, 1981, time 

13 period, where you have some of your data, and 

14 now this new set of data where you are 

15 referring to it as just FUSRAP, period?

16 MR. CRAWFORD: We think that the 

17 1976 and 1981 was basically assessment data. 

18 Did they need to do a cleanup?

19 DR. MAURO: That is very important 

20 because, in effect, what that says is this is

21 sort of like the airborne activity that we 

22 experienced toward the end, almost like a 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

91

1 baseline before FUSRAP began.

2 MR. CRAWFORD: Certainly, before 

3 FUSRAP began, yes.

4 DR. MAURO: Okay, that is very 

5 helpful. Thank you.

6 MR. CRAWFORD: By some years.

7 DR. MAURO: Many. Yes, I 

8 understand.

9 CHAIR ROESSLER: What we need to 

10 do is keep in mind, then, at the end of the 

11 day, we are going to have to have a list of 

12 what the next steps are. So, as we are going 

13 along, if people could make notes on that to 

14 help us summarize when we finish it, and I 

15 think we have brought up one of them.

16 So, Steve, I think you asked a 

17 question, how should you follow through? I 

18 think you summarized Table 1, the summary of 

19 findings, which really have to do with dose 

20 reconstruction.

21 DR. OSTROW: Right.

22 CHAIR ROESSLER: Then you refer to 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

92

1 Table 2 with your nine issues.

2 DR. OSTROW: This is what we think 

3 that the petition issues are boiled down. Of 

4 course, Antoinette is free to comment on that, 

5 too.

6 You were involved in the petition, 

7 in this petition. Did we actually capture 

8 what you think are the important issues?

9 MS. BONSIGNORE: Yes, I would 

10 agree with the way you summarized it.

11 DR. OSTROW: Okay.

12 MR. RUTHERFORD: Now correct me if 

13 I am wrong. The only thing you are doing with 

14 Table 2 is, your review of the petition, you 

15 have identified what you believe are the 

16 petitioner issues?

17 DR. OSTROW: That's right.

18 MR. RUTHERFORD: You are not 

19 saying that those are SC&A's issues?

20 DR. OSTROW: No.

21 MR. RUTHERFORD: You are saying 

22 that those are issues that, when the petition 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

93

1 was submitted to NIOSH, those are the issues 

2 that you derived from that petition --

3 DR. OSTROW: That is right. So, I 

4 mean, we are not evaluating them, whether we 

5 think they are good issues, bad issues, or 

6 anything.

7 MR. RUTHERFORD: Right.

8 DR. OSTROW: These are just --

9 MR. RUTHERFORD: Right.

10 DR. OSTROW: -- what we think are 

11 the issues.

12 MR. RUTHERFORD: Right.

13 DR. OSTROW: Because the petition 

14 has a lot of good information in it, but it is 

15 scattered a little bit. We tried to extract 

16 what are the actual points were in the issues.

17 As I said, we also have the second 

18 column of that Table 2, which are what we 

19 think was NIOSH's response in your evaluation 

20 report to the issues. We did the mapping, and 

21 we invite NIOSH to comment on that, when you 

22 get around to that stage. Did we capture your 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

94

1 response correctly? But we didn't evaluate 

2 that.

3 MR. RUTHERFORD: Right.

4 DR. OSTROW: This is just sort of 

5 a road map of what we think.

6 MR. RUTHERFORD: But Table 1 

7 upfront, those are the findings? Those are 

8 the ones that we need to work through --

9 DR. OSTROW: Yes.

10 MR. RUTHERFORD: -- and work to 

11 resolution?

12 DR. OSTROW: That's right. Table 

13 1 are our actual findings that we have.

14 MR. RUTHERFORD: All right. Now I 

15 don't know if you or John are willing to do 

16 this or not, but I am going to ask it anyway.

17 (Laughter.)

18 DR. OSTROW: Sure.

19 MR. RUTHERFORD: Are you willing 

20 or have you looked at the 11 issues that you 

21 have identified, and have you actually couched 

22 them or looked at those issues and said, okay, 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

95

1 do we feel that this issue is an issue that is 

2 a, we'll call them, TBD issue in that it is, 

3 okay, we're not sure if the number that NIOSH 

4 used is correct? This number could be a 

5 little higher. It doesn't question our 

6 feasibility to actually reconstruct dose, but 

7 it does question the number we may have used.

8 Can you separate them into issues 

9 that use what I will call SEC issues and TBD 

10 issues? SEC issues, where you really question 

11 where this issue points to a feasibility of 

12 NIOSH in our ability to reconstruct dose?

13 MEMBER BEACH: That is a great 

14 suggestion.

15 DR. MAURO: Yes, that is a great 

16 question. I will do the best I can to walk a 

17 tightrope on that question.

18 (Laughter.)

19 Because I don't want to be 

20 conclusionary.

21 (Laughter.)

22 I would say that we have very 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

96

1 serious concerns with the way in which you 

2 have approached reconstructing the exposures, 

3 and we have strong suggestions on alternative 

4 strategies that might be more scientifically5 sound and claimant-favorable and more in 

6 keeping with the philosophy adopted by 

7 OTIB-0070.

8 So I would say, in that regard, 

9 the tendency would be, using these other 

10 approaches that we are going to be talking 

11 about, we are going to suggest, would bring 

12 you more in line with what we would see as 

13 being a more appropriate approach.

14 But, of course, as we move into 

15 that direction and talk about this other 

16 approach, questions regarding data adequacy 

17 will arise. I am going to give you an 

18 example, and then I will be quiet.

19 OTIB-0070 leans you toward, 

20 listen, let's start with the data we have for 

21 the early years, whether it is the 1940s or up 

22 to, let's say, 1953, where we have radon, we 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

97

1 have air particulates. And OTIB-0070 says --

2 and this is a classic example of why we like 

3 OTIB-0070 -- let's start with what we know as 

4 of the end of, what I would consider to be, 

5 the dirty period, and use that data, as 

6 complete as it is, and select from that some 

7 metrics of dust loading, radon, that is our 

8 starting point for our residual period.

9 Then let that residual activity 

10 decline at some slope that can be justified, 

11 based on, for example, later data taken in 

12 1976. You did not take that approach.

13 Now so what I would say is, in 

14 principle, that strategy seems to be a much 

15 more scientifically-defensible strategy. Then 

16 the question from an SEC perspective is, do 

17 you have sufficient data in, let's say, in the 

18 1953, 1952, time period, perhaps even during 

19 the operations period, that would represent a 

20 good dataset to draw from as your anchor for 

21 the start of 1954?

22 So, if you do, and right now I'm 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

98

1 going to rein in myself a little bit about 

2 saying whether you do or you don't, but that 

3 is the essence of, okay, if we've got some 

4 pretty good data, that is a good anchor. If 

5 you've got that, and it can be shown, I think 

6 what we are talking about now is a site 

7 profile issue.

8 If that data is weak, it is an SEC 

9 issue because then you have a difficult time 

10 anchoring it. So that goes toward radon and 

11 the particulates.

12 There's only one place that I say 

13 right now, in my mind, is probably a fairly 

14 strong SEC issue that we need to talk about. 

15 The other matters I say sort of tend toward 

16 potentially resolvable site profile issues. 

17 The one area that I consider to be a potential 

18 SEC is this business of raffinates.

19 As you know, when you are dealing 

20 with air sampling and you have your gross 

21 alpha counts, dpm per cubic meter, you know, 

22 I'm always concerned that, what is the mix in 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

99

1 there? Now if there were no raffinates onsite 

2 during the period of interest, and therefore, 

3 we could assume that the mix that you are 

4 looking at in your gross alpha count is, you 

5 know, what would be a normal mix with natural 

6 uranium or a normal mix of ore in terms of dpm 

7 per cubic meter, you know, what constitutes 

8 that, but if there are some raffinates where 

9 you've got some thorium-230 or radium-226, 

10 then I am concerned, what are you going to 

11 assume those dpm's are?

12 As you all know, whenever we enter 

13 the world of raffinates, it is always a little 

14 difficult. The extent to which we could put 

15 that issue to bed would be important.

16 So I guess that is my best shot at 

17 trying to lay out what I would call the 

18 landscape of the problems as they pertain to 

19 whether they are SEC versus site profile 

20 issues.

21 MR. RUTHERFORD: I think he will 

22 make a good politician.
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

100

1 (Laughter.)

2 MEMBER BEACH: I am not sure we 

3 got all that, right?

4 MR. RUTHERFORD: No, I understand 

5 what you're saying. We didn't go down each 

6 finding and specifically come up with a 

7 separation. But I understand what John is 

8 saying, in that he is saying that, okay, as a 

9 raffinate issue, I am not sure I really see 

10 that issue, but I understand what he is 

11 saying.

12 I think, in general, the 

13 discussion, I think we are going to have to 

14 discuss why we chose the model we chose versus 

15 using OTIB-0070 and provide an explanation of 

16 that. I think that will help on some of the 

17 issues as well.

18 MEMBER BEACH: I think it would be 

19 fair to let SC&A kind of maybe discuss that, 

20 not trying to do it on the fly in the middle 

21 of this meeting, personally.

22 MR. RUTHERFORD: Sure.
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

101

1 MEMBER BEACH: I have another 

2 question --

3 MR. RUTHERFORD: Sure.

4 MEMBER BEACH: -- for Steve. Did 

5 all of the petitioners' issues, did some of 

6 those actually make it into your 11 list?

7 DR. OSTROW: Some of them did, the 

8 ones that we thought are relevant, but some of 

9 them didn't seem that relevant.

10 MEMBER BEACH: Right. What I 

11 would like to see is it identified if it was 

12 an issue or a petitioner issue, if you would 

13 just let it be known where it was captured in 

14 this list, so that I understand which ones of 

15 these actually did become part of your 

16 findings.

17 DR. OSTROW: Oh, I see.

18 MEMBER BEACH: And the petitioners 

19 would probably like to see that as well. 

20 Because, while this Table 2 is handy and it is 

21 nice to see, I want to see what you captured 

22 over in that list also, if you don't mind.
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

102

1 DR. OSTROW: That is basically 

2 mapping Table 2 to Table 1.

3 MEMBER BEACH: Well, or which ones 

4 you decided fit into those findings. I guess 

5 I was looking for a more uniform matrix like I 

6 have seen at other sites. This one was a 

7 little different.

8 DR. OSTROW: Yes, I hear what you 

9 are saying. Our two tables sort of exist 

10 separately. They identify the petitioner 

11 issues, and we came up with a list of our 

12 issues, but we didn't really make a connection 

13 between the two of them to show you what --

14 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

15 DR. MAURO: Yes, this is John.

16 I think it is important to make 

17 sure that there is nothing on Table 2, issues 

18 raised by the petitioners that we missed. In 

19 other words, I know in talking to you, Steve, 

20 about one of the issues that I don't think any 

21 of us really engaged is this records business.

22 DR. OSTROW: Yes, the structure of 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

103

1 records.

2 DR. MAURO: And I agree 

3 completely; it is critical that every item 

4 that is on the petitioner's list, as best we 

5 reconstructed it in Table 2, that we, in fact, 

6 have addressed. And if we haven't, we need to 

7 identify it, that we haven't addressed it.

8 So I think, yes, that is a great 

9 point, Josie. I think we've got to do that.

10 DR. OSTROW: I think we mentioned 

11 the destruction of documents, but we 

12 specifically said we didn't address it in 

13 this. That is something, if the Work Group 

14 wants us to do, we can do that going forward. 

15 But that would have bogged down turning out 

16 this report, which is basically on technical 

17 issues. Destruction of records is not a 

18 technical issue. It is something that is 

19 important.

20 DR. MAURO: Where does records 

21 come in? See, right now, to go back to the 

22 question, the difficult question, I was asked 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

104

1 regarding SEC versus site profile, it is 

2 almost like a stage step process.

3 Let's say we get to the point 

4 during this meeting where it is agreed, well, 

5 you know, maybe -- let's say NIOSH agrees, 

6 well, maybe we should have given a little bit 

7 more consideration to OTIB-0070 and grab that 

8 data. Then you say, okay, how are we going to 

9 use that data? Now NIOSH may not agree with 

10 that. I understand. In fact, by the end of 

11 the day, we may agree with you that, no, the 

12 way you are using it is fine. I would like to 

13 hear more about that.

14 But, just for the sake of a model 

15 going forward, let's say we get to the point 

16 where we say, no, you know, I think we want to 

17 use certain data as an anchor, using the 

18 OTIB-0070 approach. Then the question, would 

19 that process go forward in a more 

20 scientifically-robust way if we had access to 

21 these other data, these FUSRAP data that will 

22 be made reference to?
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

105

1 Not only that, even if NIOSH, 

2 let's say, makes a strong case why their 

3 current approach is scientifically-sound and 

4 claimant-favorable, we need to ask ourselves 

5 the question, is there anything about the 

6 future data that might emerge, which is, of 

7 course, much later data that would be 

8 applicable here?

9 I'm sure it would be applicable to 

10 the later years, you know, 2006, 2005, but the 

11 degree to which it might be helpful for the 

12 more difficult years, 1953, let's say, through 

13 1976, I think that these are all matters that 

14 we are going to have to discuss.

15 CHAIR ROESSLER: This is hard for 

16 me to sort out all the things we are doing 

17 here. I think we have to focus on one thing, 

18 and that is, when does NIOSH present, 

19 essentially, the report that Chris gave at the 

20 beginning of our meeting? That is an SEC. 

21 For that, we have to deal with SEC issues, and 

22 we have to wrap everything else into it.
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

106

1 Yes, Ted? Maybe you can help us.

2 MR. KATZ: When does NIOSH present 

3 to the full Board?

4 CHAIR ROESSLER: Yes.

5 MR. KATZ: I mean we have a whole 

6 Work Group process to go through now.

7 CHAIR ROESSLER: I know, but --

8 MR. KATZ: At the end of the whole 

9 Work Group process, I would think, given that 

10 this is sort of an unusual situation where we 

11 have had SC&A do a review before the Board 

12 ever got our presentation, so petitioners will 

13 make a presentation today as opposed to making 

14 a presentation to the full Board on the front 

15 end. Obviously, there will be opportunities 

16 to present to the full Board when this comes 

17 to the full Board for the petitioner.

18 But my initial thought about this 

19 is that the Work Group will probably, as 

20 opposed to the normal process of OCAS getting 

21 up and giving a presentation, here's our 

22 evaluation report, and then the petitioner 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

107

1 getting up and saying, "This is what I have 

2 concerns about," since there's no tasking of 

3 SC&A, at that point SC&A will have done its 

4 work.

5 I think it probably makes more 

6 sense for the Work Group to brief the Board on 

7 the entire process of the Work Group, 

8 including what has been presented to it, where 

9 the Work Group stands, whatever outstanding 

10 issues there might be that don't get resolved 

11 by the Work Group, and then with the 

12 opportunity of OCAS and SC&A to feed into that 

13 briefing. That will sort of then set the 

14 Board on its course to have the full Board 

15 deliberations.

16 In my thought, that is probably a 

17 better model for this, given that we will have 

18 had all this groundwork done before it ever 

19 comes before the full Board. That is open for 

20 amendment, or whatever, but that is my thought 

21 for the sort of sensible approach to that.

22 CHAIR ROESSLER: So I guess what I 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

108

1 am trying to do is focus on, where do we go 

2 from right now? We have brought up what seems 

3 to be one SEC issue only. I am not sure if 

4 that is what John intended.

5 DR. MAURO: I am sorry. I didn't 

6 want to leave you with that impression. In 

7 fact, I think if we get into the first three 

8 issues on radon, we think that there are some 

9 problems with the method used to reconstruct 

10 exposure to radon from 1954 on.

11 They did not use an approach that 

12 we felt was scientifically-robust, claimant13 favorable, and in accordance with OTIB-0070.

14 MR. KATZ: John, can I just 

15 interject here?

16 DR. MAURO: Sure.

17 MR. KATZ: We had all this sort of 

18 unusual discussion about where John was asked 

19 about, what's TBD and what's an SEC issue, and 

20 so on, upfront, and so on, but we haven't 

21 really had the opportunity yet for Steve to 

22 present the substantive findings.
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

109

1 So we had an OCAS presentation we 

2 haven't even gotten into. Let's have SC&A 

3 present its review. At the tail-end of that, 

4 I would say, rather than you having to put 

5 words in OCAS's mouth, OCAS can then give its 

6 initial response to that. Then we have a 

7 petitioner opportunity to give the 

8 petitioner's comments. Then let's get into 

9 the turf of this.

10 But it seems like we have done a 

11 lot of sort of global discussion before 

12 getting into the meat. It probably will be 

13 helpful to go through everybody's hard work.

14 DR. MAURO: I agree with you 100 

15 percent.

16 So you want to do this orally? So 

17 I would like to do it orally because I'm 

18 getting a little frustrated that there's been 

19 so much sort of crosstalk about issues that 

20 nobody has really deliberated on the details 

21 about yet.

22 DR. OSTROW: Okay. So what I 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

110

1 would like to talk about now, basically, using 

2 our Table 1, which is a summary of our 

3 findings, as the guidance, is to go through 

4 the different points.

5 Our Table 1 is a summary of 

6 findings, and it points in the third column to 

7 which section of our report goes into it in 

8 more detail. So Table 1 is a little bit of a 

9 shorthand.

10 We can take several of these 

11 issues at a time. As has been mentioned, the 

12 first three issues all have to do with radon 

13 exposures, bounding radon exposures.

14 Our first finding, and this is all 

15 in Section 3.2.1 of our report, which is 

16 called "Bounding Radon Exposures," and there's 

17 a little bit of a discussion on it, but then 

18 we have the findings.

19 One of the findings is that the 

20 data that was taken after the decontamination 

21 of Building 31 -- that is the 1981 survey --

22 was actually higher in the good number of 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

111

1 cases than the data that was taken before the 

2 decontamination was done, the 1976 data.

3 I think the timeline is the 1976 

4 survey there was decontamination work done. 

5 Then there was a 1981 survey.

6 We found that, though it has been 

7 said in a couple of places, the 1976 survey 

8 wasn't a great survey, and it was a little bit 

9 cursory. But it still raises questions in my 

10 mind, why the dose rates or the doses were 

11 higher after the decontamination than they 

12 were before? That puts, I think, doubt on the 

13 whole process of the surveys. That is our 

14 finding 1, basically.

15 Finding 2 -- and we had brought 

16 this up before in dealing with the site 

17 profile issues -- that NIOSH is using the mean 

18 value, geometric mean, rather than the 95 

19 percentile value, as the appropriate exposure 

20 metric. We still think for bounding 

21 calculation we should be using 95 percentile 

22 value rather than the geometric mean.
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

112

1 We also bring up the issue that 

2 you are using data from 1976 or also 1981 and 

3 extrapolating back like 30 years prior to the 

4 beginning of the residual period. To us, that 

5 is not a very good way of doing it. We don't 

6 think that is a robust way of doing it.

7 As John outlined earlier in one of 

8 the preface remarks, we think it would be more 

9 robust to go forward in a lot of cases. Look 

10 at the measurement, the dose rates, and all 

11 that, at the end of the operations period, the 

12 beginning of the residual period, and go 

13 forward from that.

14 Also, as John mentioned, this is 

15 the OTIB-0070 approach. We think that would 

16 be a more claimant-favorable and more 

17 scientifically-valid approach for coming up 

18 with bounding radon values for this period.

19 That basically summarizes our 

20 findings with respect to radon.

21 Gen, would you like us, do you 

22 think, to go through all findings, and have 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

113

1 NIOSH respond, or have them respond by group? 

2 This is the radon findings, the three of 

3 them.

4 CHAIR ROESSLER: To me, it would 

5 seem like it would be good to have them 

6 respond to this set of findings.

7 DR. OSTROW: I agree. I think it 

8 would be less confusing.

9 CHAIR ROESSLER: Yes. We could 

10 concentrate on one topic.

11 MR. CRAWFORD: Okay. Looking at 

12 finding 1 -- and, Steve, I might need to check 

13 with you -- it is true some of the decon 

14 contact survey data from 1950 and Building 31, 

15 the average makes it look like there was no 

16 improvement. In fact, it looked like it might 

17 have gotten worse.

18 But what we noticed was, if you 

19 look at the worst spots, they were 

20 significantly reduced. Almost 5,000 

21 measurements were taken for surface contact 

22 data, and you even provided it. I noticed 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

114

1 that the Heatherton report provides a map of 

2 where the decontamination was heaviest --

3 DR. OSTROW: Yes.

4 MR. CRAWFORD: -- and to what 

5 degree, which was good of them.

6 Naturally, that is where they 

7 concentrated their decon efforts. It looks 

8 like, if you look at the high readings, they 

9 significantly reduced them, sometimes by a 

10 factor of as much as 10, often by six or more.

11 The average was little affected. 

12 But, if you have 5,000 readings and a great 

13 majority of them are zeroes -- they mention 

14 94.5 percent of the readings were 1 millirem 

15 or less, for instance, at contact -- then you 

16 can't lower the average very much, no matter 

17 how much work you do. There's just too much 

18 zero values sitting out there, you might call 

19 it.

20 So we think there's evidence that 

21 the bulk of the fixed contamination was 

22 significantly reduced, even though the average 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

115

1 exposure across the whole building didn't 

2 change terribly much.

3 I guess our whole point, and I 

4 should mention again, as we all know, Joe 

5 Guido worked on this extensively and he's only 

6 available on an occasional consultant basis 

7 now, but our view of the situation is that, 

8 after the decontamination, the remaining 

9 fixed, embedded radioactive contaminants were 

10 much less than they were before the 

11 decontamination.

12 The situation probably was very 

13 stable. There is no reason to think it 

14 changed over the years from there to, say, 

15 1976 and 1981, and the measurements you are 

16 speaking of.

17 There were absolutely no process 

18 activities going on here. The process, the 

19 material was all removed. All those thousands 

20 of tons of ore were history. All of the 

21 product, the green salt, and so forth, all 

22 gone. All the process machinery, gone. So 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

116

1 there was no contamination from that source.

2 It was used as a general occupancy 

3 warehouse, period. We don't have any reason 

4 to think that there's a significant change to 

5 be expected in the embedded contaminants.

6 So that is why we are looking at 

7 this later data and saying it would have been 

8 nice to have it earlier, but why would it have 

9 changed?

10 DR. MAURO: Chris, I'm sorry to 

11 jump in here, but it is a subject that I was 

12 looking at pretty closely.

13 First, let me say that we have 

14 left the area of radon, and you are using a 

15 residual activity measured on surfaces.

16 By the way, on a positive note, we 

17 agree completely with your approach for 

18 external. In other words, you will notice we 

19 have no comments on external dose. So we 

20 don't think there are any issues there. We 

21 think that you did a fine job and it is 

22 claimant-favorable. The data are very good. 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

117

1 That does go toward the surface contamination 

2 information you are talking about.

3 I have a problem, though, using 

4 residual activity on surfaces as a surrogate 

5 for airborne radon levels. I understand why 

6 you might want to take that approach, but I 

7 think that, when you have radon data, 

8 especially if you have radon data that go back 

9 to the fifties, use it.

10 The idea, the fact that you have 

11 what you would consider relatively stable 

12 surface contamination levels observed in 1976 

13 and 1981 as a way to be indicative of what the 

14 radon levels might have been in 1954, I really 

15 have a problem with that.

16 That is why I came down on I 

17 really like the OTIB-0070 approach, where, no, 

18 no, let's use the -- now there's a problem 

19 with using the radon data from, let's say, the 

20 1950s or the forties because the problem was a 

21 lot worse. But we have seen that before. We 

22 have seen you use that on Dow, where I think 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

118

1 that it was even more conservative on Dow.

2 The approach where you used some 

3 Dow measurements of airborne activity during 

4 operations, and then used that as your anchor 

5 to start the residual period, that was an 

6 application where we thought that approach is 

7 appropriate. In fact, we concluded that it 

8 was extremely conservative.

9 I could see you using it here just 

10 like you did at Dow. In fact, it would be 

11 even less conservative here because you would 

12 have better data.

13 So, you know, my sensibility is 

14 that I understand the point you are making, 

15 but to use that as a basis for assigning a 

16 radon concentration for 1953, using surface 

17 contamination levels observed, and somehow 

18 that is indicative or it can be used as a hook 

19 to help you reconstruct what the airborne 

20 radon concentrations might have been in the 

21 building in 1953, I have a problem with that.

22 MR. RUTHERFORD: John, this is 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

119

1 Bomber. I want to respond a little bit to 

2 that.

3 The Dow model was used because 

4 there was no D&D activity that occurred after 

5 1960 at Dow. We used the cutoff date of when 

6 operations stopped as our high point --

7 DR. MAURO: Right.

8 MR. RUTHERFORD: -- and then did 

9 the exponential reduction based on that. So, 

10 I mean, there's a big difference between Dow 

11 and Linde.

12 DR. MAURO: Well, why wouldn't 

13 that work here? I guess, what is it about 

14 that that is --

15 MR. RUTHERFORD: I think it would 

16 work here. If you wanted to use that 

17 approach, you could use that approach, but I 

18 think that a more appropriate estimate of the 

19 concentrations are the fact that you take into 

20 consideration from 1950 to 1954 there was a 

21 significant D&D effort to clean the facility 

22 up, remove the contaminants, remove the 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

120

1 equipment, remove the product, remove heavily2 contaminated concrete.

3 That period took out a significant 

4 source term from that point. What we believe, 

5 due to the washdowns and that activity, that 

6 there was very little loose contamination that 

7 existed.

8 From that point to 1976, we took 

9 the position that, based on the cleanup that 

10 occurred from 1950 to 1954, the only reduction 

11 you are going to see is going to be if there 

12 was activities that occurred, the renovation 

13 activities, where you could get spot samples 

14 of contaminants removed, and if a renovation 

15 activity occurred over a month, that month 

16 could generate some spot airborne.

17 But the significant portion of our 

18 source term remains relatively constant from 

19 that period of the end of D&D in the 1953-1954 

20 period to 1976, because your removal constant 

21 is much lower or it is more affected by decay 

22 than anything, and decay sure isn't going to 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

121

1 do much for that period.

2 DR. MAURO: I hear you.

3 MEMBER BEACH: So we are talking 

4 about Building 31, correct?

5 MR. CRAWFORD: Thirty normally.

6 DR. MAURO: Thirty, yes.

7 Yes, but, Bomber, when we looked 

8 at the cleanup that was done in that 

9 decontamination period --

10 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes.

11 DR. MAURO: -- I believe that is 

12 the period where you had this eightfold 

13 effect?

14 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes, we actually 

15 determined an eightfold from -- yes, we 

16 indicated --

17 DR. MAURO: We had a problem with 

18 that.

19 MR. RUTHERFORD: Sure.

20 DR. MAURO: Reality is, I think we 

21 walk away from that decon operation, is that 

22 it really didn't buy you too much. In other 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

122

1 words, going from the beginning to the end of 

2 decon, it wasn't eight; it was something less. 

3 So decon didn't do too much.

4 It did what it did, but the 

5 metrics don't -- you know, you would expect, 

6 oh, we go from some high level, you know, by 

7 orders of magnitude drop, but we don't see 

8 that.

9 So, all of a sudden, the end of 

10 the decon period, whatever the year that is, 

11 1953, seems to be, given that decon wasn't all 

12 that effective from the beginning to the end 

13 in terms of really getting things down, that's 

14 the data we see. It tells me that is probably 

15 a pretty good place to start.

16 In my opinion, I would have gone 

17 with the geometric mean of the radon and the 

18 airborne dust loadings, starting at the end of 

19 decon, maybe if you have enough data. I 

20 haven't looked at all the data, but let's say 

21 you have lots and lots of measurements. I 

22 would have gone with the geometric mean and 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

123

1 then used that as my anchor for the starting 

2 point for 1953.

3 MR. CRAWFORD: By the way, the 

4 only radon measurements that I'm aware of in 

5 the early period were taken during production. 

6 The values are very high, as you would expect 

7 when you have thousands of tons of source 

8 term.

9 DR. MAURO: So you don't have any 

10 radon numbers during the decontamination time 

11 period?

12 MR. CRAWFORD: Not to my 

13 knowledge.

14 DR. MAURO: Okay.

15 MR. CRAWFORD: The reason that we 

16 are looking at the fixed contamination as a 

17 proxy is because, essentially, it is the 

18 source of the radon. Therefore, if it is 

19 greatly reduced --

20 DR. MAURO: Well, do you know how 

21 I would handle that? I would look at the 

22 airborne dust loading for particulates that 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

124

1 you do have and relate -- in other words, see, 

2 I like the idea of anchoring the beginning. 

3 Somehow find a way -- and this might become an 

4 SEC issue. If you can't find a way to get a 

5 good anchor for what the airborne radon levels 

6 are in the beginning of 1953, you've got a 

7 problem.

8 If you have minimal amount of 

9 radon measurement, that doesn't mean there's 

10 not a way to create. For example, let's say 

11 you go all the way back to operations, and you 

12 have measurements on air particulates and you 

13 have measurements of radon during operations. 

14 So you've got some relationship.

15 Then you say, okay, this is what 

16 we had during operation, and we have lots and 

17 lots and lots of data. Okay, how do we take 

18 advantage of that? Well, now we have lots of 

19 data during D&D, but we only have particulate; 

20 we don't have radon.

21 All right. To me, you say, well, 

22 we do have a pretty robust relationship, and 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

125

1 you could say, well, where you could use the 

2 air particulate as a hook to say it's unlikely 

3 that the radon levels would have been much 

4 higher than this during decontamination. And 

5 then you've got your anchor. That's how I 

6 would have come at this thing.

7 Now when I look at these things, I 

8 say, how would I have done it that I think 

9 would be a little bit more scientifically10 defensible? And I would have taken that 

11 approach.

12 I think that you are several steps 

13 removed by going to the 1976 data. It is so 

14 far removed that it doesn't really engender a 

15 great deal of confidence that you really 

16 caught the upper end to the early fifties.

17 Now whether or not you have the 

18 data in order to create this model for 1953, 

19 that is a question that is, in my mind, still 

20 on the table, and how you would deal with 

21 that.

22 But I've got to say right now the 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

126

1 approach to radon, as currently described, 

2 left me -- I felt that there's got to be a 

3 better way to do this.

4 MR. RUTHERFORD: John, it's Bomber 

5 again.

6 Two things: one, I think we need 

7 to get into really at some point, whether it 

8 is just another meeting, we need to really get 

9 into a discussion on why you believe the 

10 decontamination that was conducted 1950 to 

11 1954 had little effect. Because I believe 

12 that you guys have taken a very different 

13 approach to your decontamination factor.

14 I think Chris mentioned the fact 

15 that 94.5 percent of the samples, if you look 

16 at -- you know and I know, if your 

17 contamination on the surface is nothing, and 

18 you remeasure it, it is nothing again. Your 

19 decontamination factor is not going to change 

20 or you don't have any. You know, it's one.

21 DR. MAURO: Right.

22 MR. RUTHERFORD: So, if you look 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

127

1 at the decontamination of the higher 

2 contamination areas to what the results are 

3 after decontamination, and you focus, look at 

4 those areas, that is giving you a better 

5 indication of how well your decontamination, 

6 how effective your decontamination is. That 

7 is one issue.

8 So I think we need to talk 

9 about --

10 DR. MAURO: And I agree, and that 

11 is our factor-of-eight issue that we are going 

12 to get to later.

13 MR. RUTHERFORD: Okay.

14 DR. MAURO: See, but there are 

15 linkages. And I agree with you. I think we 

16 are on the right track, though.

17 You see, what we are doing is we 

18 are talking about, can we somehow take 

19 advantage of the decon period data to help us 

20 anchor our residual period? In other words, 

21 it is where I wanted this conversation to go, 

22 as opposed to the approach that you folks are 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

128

1 using, where you are anchoring everything on 

2 1976 data, which I have to say is very 

3 disturbing to me.

4 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes, but you 

5 didn't let me finish here.

6 DR. MAURO: Okay.

7 MR. RUTHERFORD: The one thing, my 

8 point is to show that we believe the 

9 decontamination was very effective and that it 

10 left fixed contamination, for the most part, 

11 fixed contamination was left from that point 

12 at the end of D&D.

13 So, then, the actual changes in 

14 the contamination and even the radon of the 

15 time of the end of the D&D period we believe 

16 was only affected by, if there was the 

17 renovation activities that occurred in 

18 between, the spot changes that occurred, but 

19 other than that, they were unaffected past 

20 that 1954 period.

21 That is why we went with that 

22 radon model. If you go back and you take the 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

129

1 -- you know, I see the driver here. The 

2 driver is to say, okay, well, we think it was 

3 not effective, the D&D work, from 1950 to 

4 1954. Maybe you should take the high point of 

5 1949-1950 and use that as an exponential 

6 decay.

7 DR. MAURO: And a geometric mean.

8 MR. RUTHERFORD: But then you are 

9 taking the position that the D&D that occurred 

10 in 1950 to 1954 did zero, and I totally 

11 disagree with that.

12 DR. MAURO: Yes, well, see, that's 

13 the dilemma we have. We have a dilemma that 

14 both approaches have their problems. I think 

15 that when we are in a situation like that, 

16 this is classic, you go with the one that is 

17 claimant-favorable but still plausible.

18 Right now, I think you folks have 

19 selected the approach that certainly is 

20 plausible, but I don't think it is as 

21 claimant-favorable as it could be. So I am 

22 more inclined to go toward making the error on 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

130

1 the other side; namely, I think we may have 

2 overestimated it for the following reasons, as 

3 you did with Dow.

4 MR. RUTHERFORD: Well, as I 

5 mentioned, Dow is completely different. 

6 Operations continued at Dow. The only reason 

7 that 1960 was picked was that was the end of 

8 the AEC-covered period, and operations 

9 continued at Dow. There were no efforts for 

10 D&D or else we would have taken that into 

11 consideration.

12 DR. MAURO: But, in my defense --

13 I'm sorry -- in Dow, though, we know that only 

14 .1 percent of the activities that took place 

15 during the operations period were AWE-related. 

16 The rest were commercial.

17 But, nevertheless, so therefore, 

18 in theory, the airborne concentrations that

19 were your anchor on Dow probably were 

20 overestimated by a factor of a thousand. But, 

21 nevertheless --

22 MR. RUTHERFORD: John, we talked 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

131

1 about that. You know that's --

2 DR. MAURO: And we did.

3 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes.

4 DR. MAURO: And we did, and the 

5 Work Group decided that that's okay.

6 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes.

7 DR. MAURO: So the Work Group was 

8 comfortable with the potential of a one 

9 thousand-fold overestimate as your anchor. 

10 And I'm saying that, if we can do that there, 

11 we certainly can do this here.

12 MR. RUTHERFORD: John, that had 

13 nothing to do with a technical reason. That 

14 was a legal reason, John. So, using that as 

15 your anchor doesn't work with me.

16 MR. ELLIOTT: No, it is not a fair 

17 comparison.

18 MR. RUTHERFORD: No, it's not. I 

19 think one of the things that we can do is we 

20 can go back in our final address, and when we 

21 address these findings in our final, we can 

22 come back and provide you more detail why we 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

132

1 believe the decontamination effort that 

2 occurred in the 1950 to 1954 period was 

3 effective, and discuss more detail.

4 I know it is going to come up here 

5 in one of the other findings with the 

6 decontamination factor, but that is obviously 

7 something that we are going to work to 

8 convince you that that effort that occurred 

9 from 1950 to 1954 was productive.

10 DR. MAURO: I mean what is good 

11 that came out of this discussion, I think we 

12 both clearly understand each other.

13 MR. RUTHERFORD: Sure.

14 DR. MAURO: And we're not talking 

15 past each other.

16 CHAIR ROESSLER: Let me understand 

17 this though. If you can convince him about 

18 the decontamination period, does that, then, 

19 remove his idea of this anchor that he is 

20 talking about, using that old data to come up 

21 with a --

22 MR. RUTHERFORD: I don't know that 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

133

1 it does.

2 DR. MAURO: Yes. Yes. In other 

3 words, that would be the challenge, to 

4 demonstrate that the approach that they have 

5 taken is scientifically-sound and also 

6 claimant-favorable. Of course.

7 Right now, our perspective, from 

8 what we have seen, we think that there is 

9 another approach that is more scientifically10 sound because its proximity in time is better. 

11 Instead of 1976, we are talking the fifties. 

12 Second, it is certainly more claimant13 favorable.

14 So, in my mind, the way there will 

15 be evidence is to try to anchor from the front 

16 end and not from the back end, and try to make 

17 an argument why 1976 data is probably okay. I 

18 think that is going to be tough to do.

19 MR. CRAWFORD: John, I don't 

20 think, however, you have answered my 

21 observation that the only radon measurements 

22 we have in the early period are during 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

134

1 production.

2 DR. MAURO: Yes.

3 MR. CRAWFORD: We do not have any 

4 radon measurements during the decon period.

5 DR. MAURO: Well, I mean -- yes.

6 MR. CRAWFORD: So how can we 

7 anchor to production? How can that be a 

8 reasonable, scientifically-justifiable 

9 position?

10 DR. MAURO: Yes, but you just 

11 opened up a nice SEC issue.

12 MR. RUTHERFORD: Well, see, you 

13 know, I think that is an issue that can be --

14 I mean, ultimately, if we came down to that 

15 position, we can address what the radon 

16 concentrations would be using a more -- and I 

17 am not committing to doing this at all because 

18 I believe our model we have right now is the 

19 right model, and the approach we have right 

20 now.

21 But I don't believe it is an SEC 

22 issue because I think we can come up with the 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

135

1 radon concentrations during that period.

2 DR. MAURO: Good. See, that is 

3 where I am headed. I am headed, if you can 

4 come up with perhaps very conservative, but 

5 plausible, radon concentration during the 

6 decon period --

7 MR. RUTHERFORD: Well, my goal, 

8 John, my goal right now is to convince you 

9 that the model we have right now, and what I 

10 am going to work towards is to convince you 

11 that the model we have right now is claimant12 favorable and is scientifically-sound.

13 DR. MAURO: Well, we certainly 

14 will keep an open mind, and we will look at 

15 your material, of course.

16 CHAIR ROESSLER: So where this 

17 sits right now is it is in NIOSH's --

18 MEMBER BEACH: Is that like a 

19 white paper coming on?

20 MR. RUTHERFORD: I think when we 

21 detail our responses to the finding in more 

22 detail, we will provide that.
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

136

1 CHAIR ROESSLER: Does this take 

2 care of, are we talking about --

3 MR. RUTHERFORD: I think it 

4 affects radon and the particulate question.

5 CHAIR ROESSLER: Are we talking 

6 about 1 through 3 in Steve's findings? Or are 

7 we actually going beyond that?

8 DR. MAURO: Right now, in my 

9 opinion, I think we have only addressed 1 

10 through 3. I would like to see how this plays 

11 out when we move on to 4, 5, and 6.

12 MR. RUTHERFORD: Okay.

13 CHAIR ROESSLER: So we are saying 

14 that for findings 1, 2, and 3, which we have 

15 all grouped together as radon, closely related 

16 to radon, they will be addressed by NIOSH, and 

17 they will come up with something in writing to 

18 present to SC&A to discuss and see what their 

19 response is?

20 DR. OSTROW: Well, I think that is 

21 sort of the answer for everything, Gen.

22 MR. RUTHERFORD: It is.
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

137

1 DR. OSTROW: Because if you 

2 recognize that NIOSH's response they produced 

3 yesterday was just basically a quick outline, 

4 it's good for discussion, but they didn't have 

5 a lot of details and they didn't have the 

6 benefit of this conversation with our 

7 consultants or all that.

8 So they are going to -- and I 

9 think this is correct, what NIOSH is going to 

10 do -- they are going to respond to our entire 

11 report, all the findings we have, and not just 

12 the radon ones. That will be the general 

13 thing.

14 Then we can go, you know, argue 

15 some more.

16 MS. BONSIGNORE: And will there be 

17 some further clarification about the issues 

18 that John raised regarding the effectiveness 

19 of the decontamination for 1950 to 1954?

20 DR. MAURO: That's why I think we 

21 really do need to talk about 4, 5, and 6.

22 MR. KATZ: Absolutely. We just 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

138

1 dealt with 1, 2, 3. So we are going to go 

2 through them all --

3 CHAIR ROESSLER: Yes, we are going 

4 there next.

5 MR. KATZ: -- regardless of 

6 whether there's any redundancy, or whatever.

7 DR. OSTROW: Okay, so moving on to 

8 4, 5, and 6, 4, 5, and 6 can be grouped 

9 together, as John noted. This has to do with 

10 basically particulates and inhalation of 

11 particulates on 4, 5, and 6.

12 I'm just noting this is all 

13 covered in Section 3.2.2.1 of the SC&A report, 

14 and it is summarized in our Table 1.

15 The finding 4, just to go through 

16 it quickly, and this is the issue of going 

17 sort of backwards in time. We believe that 

18 NIOSH's assumption that they took a single air 

19 sample taken in the 1970s, that they are using 

20 it to bound the plausible internal exposures 

21 to uranium, thorium, and radon for almost 50 

22 years in the past, we question whether that 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

139

1 can be done correctly, whether that is valid.

2 Finding 5 has to do with sort of a 

3 technical issue of NIOSH is assuming a GSD, 

4 the lognormal distribution is five, while 

5 guidance in the Battelle 2007 reference 

6 recommends a value of 10 to sitewide 

7 estimates. Five is for a process situation, 

8 while the value of 10 is recommended where you 

9 have sitewide estimates.

10 We also notice that we only have a 

11 single sample. When you put it on lognormal 

12 distribution, that can lead to substantial 

13 errors. You know, it is basically how do you 

14 draw a line through a single point?

15 And our finding 6 is what John has 

16 been talking about extensively, that NIOSH is 

17 using a constant air concentration by going 

18 sort of backwards in time, rather than looking 

19 at the beginning of the residual period and 

20 going forward in time, and have like a 

21 exponential declining that has been done in 

22 OTIB-0070.
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

140

1 So those are our three concerns 

2 basically.

3 MR. ELLIOTT: The GSD of 10 

4 approaches infinity, doesn't it? Where do you 

5 draw the line there?

6 MR. RUTHERFORD: And the other 

7 thing is, I mean, for one, the same issue is 

8 on the table for 4, 5, and 6 that is on for 1, 

9 2, and 3. We've got to show why we believe 

10 that the concentrations were relatively the 

11 same over that period. So, yes, we will have 

12 to do that, and that will be addressed.

13 The GSD of 5 and GSD of 10, we 

14 took the GSD of 5 because, although a GSD of 

15 10 is recommended for sitewide, the operations 

16 were relatively the same when you look at 

17 sitewide across this. It was general 

18 occupancy for the most part. So we felt like 

19 that GSD was more appropriate.

20 And you may want to add something 

21 to that. I don't want to --

22 MR. CRAWFORD: Just a couple of 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

141

1 things, and just for the more general 

2 audience, the GSD of 5 allows for a multiple 

3 of 14 times the geometric mean value cited. 

4 So it is a pretty wide range, a GSD of 5.

5 If you go to 10, that is saying I 

6 have no idea what the readings were; we just 

7 don't have anything to work with at all. It 

8 could be anything.

9 MR. ELLIOTT: That is total 

10 uncertainty.

11 MR. CRAWFORD: Right. So we 

12 thought a factor of 14 is a big, wide, 

13 claimant-favorable range, and that is why we 

14 chose that.

15 DR. MAURO: But think about how 

16 far removed we are from reality. I believe 

17 you picked, you took a number that was 

18 measured -- was it 1976? What year was it, 

19 the dust-loading measurement?

20 MR. CRAWFORD: 1976.

21 DR. MAURO: 1976. You take that 

22 number, single value; you assume that is the 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

142

1 upper 95th percentile of some distribution. 

2 Is that what you did?

3 I'm trying to understand the 

4 rationale, and say, okay, now we have an 

5 estimate --

6 MR. CRAWFORD: I believe so. I 

7 think that's what Joe did.

8 DR. MAURO: You have a single 

9 estimate that you say we are going to assume 

10 that the concentration in 1953 is the -- in 

11 other words, it is such a stretch. The 

12 process you are going through is to start with 

13 some value in 1976 and somehow get from there 

14 -- I don't know whether that is an airborne 

15 activity or a surface activity.

16 MR. CRAWFORD: It's airborne. 

17 But, John, you are ignoring one thing here in

18 our finding 4 response.

19 DR. MAURO: Yes.

20 MR. CRAWFORD: Joe did a 

21 calculation based on the alpha readings at the 

22 95th percentile back in the fifties, not in 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

143

1 1976, and said that, if you use standard 

2 assumptions about resuspension, and so forth, 

3 you get a value that is very similar to, but 

4 less than the value that was measured in 1976.

5 That is what gives him some 

6 confidence. That isn't just one value and 

7 there's no way to compare it to anything else. 

8 He is saying, if we start from basic science 

9 and work our way up, we come to an estimate 

10 that is really pretty close to what we 

11 actually measured so many years later.

12 DR. MAURO: I see. Well, I mean I 

13 hear you. And, see, you used 10 to the minus 

14 5 resuspension factor. That is a fairly good 

15 resuspension factor for a relatively16 undisturbed area. Ten to the minus 4 would be 

17 for -- I don't know if there was a lot of 

18 physical activity going on, people walking 

19 around, working, in 1953-1954. If they were, 

20 I might go with 10 to the minus 4.

21 But I also notice that -- and this 

22 is in my notes -- you actually have a 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

144

1 measurement in 1954 of 78 dpm per cubic meter 

2 for uranium. So there is some airborne 

3 measurement here in 1954. This is sort of 

4 like a note I wrote in a column.

5 So, apparently, there are some 

6 measurements there. I think that if we could 

7 sort of let this all converge, namely, Joe 

8 Guido's hand calc, I like that.

9 I have some notes here that there 

10 are some measurements of 78 dpm per cubic 

11 meter. I'm not too sure where I got that 

12 from. That might be measurements made during 

13 the decommissioning period, you know, the 1949 

14 to 1953 period.

15 MR. CRAWFORD: I believe that's 

16 correct, and that is what we applied the 

17 factor of eight to come up with the 10 dpm 

18 number --

19 DR. MAURO: Oh, I got it.

20 MR. CRAWFORD: -- for the 

21 renovation period.

22 DR. MAURO: Well, anyway, I hear 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

145

1 what you are saying. This last thing you 

2 mentioned about going with this dust, the 

3 concentration on the surface, and then 

4 applying, that you have, but, again, that 

5 concentration on the surface was, again, taken 

6 in 1976. Is that correct?

7 MR. CRAWFORD: No. We are using 

8 the measurements from the fifties, from the 

9 Klevin and Heatherton.

10 DR. MAURO: Okay. So you have dpm 

11 per square meter, or whatever, on surfaces for 

12 the 1950s. You apply a 10 to the minus 5 

13 resuspension factor, and you get a dust 

14 loading that is comparable to the one that you 

15 guys selected?

16 MR. CRAWFORD: No, comparable to 

17 the measurement that was made in 1976.

18 DR. MAURO: Oh, okay.

19 MR. CRAWFORD: Do you see what I'm 

20 getting at? In other words, we predicted the 

21 1976 measurement.

22 DR. MAURO: Oh, okay, well, that 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

146

1 makes a bigger argument. I hear what you're 

2 saying. Okay.

3 One other thing that might be 

4 worthwhile is to also play this -- in other 

5 words, I like to say let's come at this in 

6 several directions.

7 What you have done is, okay, that 

8 is another direction. I would sure like to 

9 know what the dust loadings were in the 

10 decontamination period. See, are we four 

11 orders of magnitude higher, a factor of two?

12 In other words, the 78 dpm per 

13 cubic meter that was measured at sometime 

14 early, I would like to see where that fits in 

15 in this milieu of different strategies you 

16 used to sort of come at what you might have 

17 experienced in 1953.

18 MR. RUTHERFORD: We could add 

19 that, John. I know what you are saying.

20 DR. MAURO: In other words, almost 

21 trying to build a story that you come at this 

22 in several directions. What happens is, my 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

147

1 experience is, when you come at something in 

2 several different ways, something emerges from 

3 that that you have to say, yes, I think I've 

4 got a pretty good feel for what the right 

5 number is.

6 Right now, just going from this 

7 1976 value, single measurement, it may turn 

8 out that is okay, but until you sort of test 

9 it by these other lines of inquiry, the way 

10 Joe did, it left me a little off-balance.

11 MR. CRAWFORD: We will certainly 

12 look at the source of that 78 or 80 dpm 

13 number. I believe those were samples, air 

14 samples, taken during the physical acts of 

15 decontamination. In other words, we could 

16 expect them to be much higher than, say, a 

17 resting building.

18 MR. ELLIOTT: Or a building with 

19 normal --

20 DR. MAURO: Well, a resting 

21 building, but I think there were certainly 

22 people doing things in the fifties, right? I 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

148

1 mean they were walking around and working? It 

2 is not that it was a quiescent place.

3 MR. ELLIOTT: I don't think we 

4 disagree with that, John. It wasn't a quiet, 

5 resting building. It had activity in it, but 

6 we don't think that activity would have 

7 generated --

8 MR. RUTHERFORD: But it wasn't a 

9 production building.

10 MR. ELLIOTT: It wasn't a 

11 production building. It wouldn't have 

12 generated what contamination was seen during 

13 the D&D effort.

14 DR. MAURO: Yes, and you can see 

15 the linkage now. The D&D period, no 

16 production going on, granted. In D&D, 

17 intuitively, you would say, well, there's a 

18 lot of airborne activity generated; it is 

19 unfair to apply D&D measurements to this 

20 residual period.

21 But then you say, but wait a 

22 minute, when we look at the D&D period, the 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

149

1 degree of decontamination that was actually 

2 experienced seemed to be marginal, maybe a 

3 factor of eight. To me, that is relatively 

4 small, by the way. Maybe smaller, based on 

5 discussions that we will get to soon.

6 So, again, I'm just looking at it, 

7 coming at it several different ways and to see 

8 how robust the outcome is. Right now, as I 

9 said, I'm uncomfortable with the number, the 

10 single value. Even though you assign -- what 

11 is it? -- a geometric standard deviation of 

12 five, the starting point of that single 

13 airborne measurement, you have to admit that 

14 is not very robust.

15 CHAIR ROESSLER: So what you are 

16 going to do is find several other ways --

17 MR. RUTHERFORD: We will do a 

18 little more comparisons.

19 CHAIR ROESSLER: -- to assess that 

20 value.

21 MR. RUTHERFORD: Right.

22 CHAIR ROESSLER: To support the 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

150

1 value.

2 Are we on to the next group now?

3 DR. OSTROW: I think so. Okay, 

4 the next group, we put together findings 7 

5 through 10, which the details are in Section 

6 3.2.2.3 of the SC&A report. These have to do 

7 with exposures during the building renovation 

8 period.

9 Finding 7, we think the process 

10 that NIOSH used to establish the 

11 decontamination dust levels don't appear to us 

12 to be claimant-favorable based on the 

13 Heatherton report. We have some details of 

14 why we don't think it's claimant-favorable.

15 Finding 8 -- I am just 

16 summarizing -- has to do with this 

17 decontamination factor of eight, which is 

18 based on pre- and post-decontamination values. 

19 We pointed out that they were taken in 

20 different areas, that one part of the building 

21 was done to the pre-decontamination; a 

22 different part of the building was done for 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

151

1 post-decontamination, and came up with a 

2 factor of eight.

3 If you look at the full dataset, 

4 which we did, we think that the differences in 

5 the potential internal exposure between the 

6 earlier and later decontamination activities 

7 aren't as great as a factor of eight. We 

8 disagree with the factor of eight.

9 The ninth finding is that we think 

10 that the TBD-6001 approach, bounding approach, 

11 is more claimant-favorable than the one done 

12 in the petition evaluation report.

13 And the finding 10, we needed 

14 clarification, a quantification of the 

15 different alpha-emitting radionuclides in the 

16 airborne dust. This is related to the 

17 raffinates that we brought up before.

18 So that is the summary of our 

19 findings.

20 CHAIR ROESSLER: And NIOSH has 

21 their response.

22 MR. CRAWFORD: Shall I just leap 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

152

1 in here?

2 CHAIR ROESSLER: Yes, go ahead.

3 MR. CRAWFORD: Okay. We will 

4 start with finding 7 then. Again, we are 

5 looking at the same data, I believe, and sort 

6 of mixing this with finding 8 as well, and 

7 just seeing different things.

8 If we only look at the average 

9 contamination level pre- and post10 decontamination, the difference is not 

11 remarkable. Joe's figure suggests that it is 

12 a factor of about two.

13 If we look, however, at the small 

14 minority of measurements that were above 1 

15 millirep, we see that those areas of 

16 heightened contamination also have the 

17 greatest reduction, often factors of six to 

18 ten.

19 Again, we have to look at the idea

20 of what was the report written for. These 

21 engineers were tasked with rendering the 

22 building fit for habitation, basically, and 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

153

1 use. They were looking to achieve levels of 

2 contamination of less than 1 millirep per hour 

3 at contact.

4 So, if some part of the building 

5 had levels less than 1 millirep per hour, and 

6 that was 94 percent of the spots surveyed, 

7 they probably didn't do much. They probably 

8 washed and vacuumed those areas and didn't do 

9 much else.

10 But where they found heavy 

11 contamination, that is when they got out the 

12 chipping hammers, the torches, the 

13 sandblasting equipment, and they removed 

14 material, and lots of it.

15 So we have to interpret what the 

16 engineers did and why they did it. I would 

17 say that it is reasonable to assume that they 

18 achieved their goal. It wouldn't have changed 

19 the average contamination much because you've 

20 got so many spots that just were a little 

21 contaminated.

22 Of course, this is an area of 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

154

1 uncertainty for all of us. Maybe the factor 

2 of eight isn't the exact correct factor. It 

3 would be a miracle if it were. But we think a 

4 significant reduction occurred.

5 MR. RUTHERFORD: Well, this, 

6 again, goes into also -- I mean responding to 

7 the discussion on why we believe the 

8 decontamination was effective, and we will 

9 detail that in our response.

10 MR. CRAWFORD: And for finding 9, 

11 I think --

12 DR. OSTROW: I was taking notes, 

13 so I didn't respond to him immediately.

14 The question may not be -- I don't 

15 know how important it is, but the pre16 decontamination was taken in one part of the 

17 building, I think the west wing or the east 

18 wing, and the other, the post-decontamination 

19 value when Joe got this factor of eight was 

20 taken in the other wing of the building. One 

21 was east and one was west, and I forget which 

22 order it was. I think it would have been more 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

155

1 valid if he took it in the same spot both 

2 times.

3 MR. CRAWFORD: Are you referring 

4 to the Heatherton study? Because I am looking 

5 at the Klevin study, and they have pre- and 

6 post- on east and on west and separately on 

7 more areas.

8 DR. OSTROW: I would have to look 

9 back at my notes, but my impression is it was 

10 different areas.

11 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes, we didn't 

12 think he did that. We will look at that in 

13 detail.

14 DR. OSTROW: I might have 

15 misinterpreted it.

16 MR. RUTHERFORD: Because if you 

17 are correct in your interpretation, then that 

18 is a question we need to address.

19 DR. OSTROW: Okay. Yes, so please 

20 look into that because I might have 

21 misinterpreted it.

22 DR. MAURO: I have another 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

156

1 thought, too. This is one of those lines of 

2 inquiry that sort of taxes your approach. Now 

3 when you do a survey with a survey meter and 

4 millirep per hour, there is a certain limit of 

5 detection. How much uranium would have to be, 

6 in terms of Becquerels per square meter, 

7 before you would even see it in terms of your 

8 survey meter, your walkover survey meter?

9 So, in theory, one could say, 

10 okay, let me just test this idea. I know that 

11 95 percent of the area we surveyed we didn't 

12 see anything. In other words, it was more or 

13 less background. Usually, a background is 

14 defined as, I'm going to say, 7 to 10 microrem 

15 per hour, plus or minus a factor of two. I 

16 mean that seems like a nice rule of thumb.

17 Now you could ask yourself the 

18 question, well, how much of this residue would 

19 have to be on the surface in order for me to 

20 see unambiguously an elevated level? Because, 

21 in theory, that would be an upper bound on 

22 what the surface contamination would be in all 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

157

1 those areas where you didn't see anything, 

2 detectable with your hand-held survey 

3 instrument, whatever that Becquerel per square 

4 meter is.

5 I apply a 10 to the minus 4 

6 resuspension factor to that. I say this seems 

7 to be an upper bound of what might have been 

8 the airborne dust loading at that time. That 

9 would be another way to come at the problem 

10 that would test or help validate or give you 

11 some assurance that the number you picked 

12 seems to be in the right place.

13 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes, and I know 

14 what you're saying, John, and I think what we 

15 could probably do that would even be easier 

16 than that would be to actually look. There's 

17 probably dose rate measurements in the same 

18 vicinity of surface contamination measurements 

19 that we could do a comparison to from that.

20 DR. MAURO: Good. Yes.

21 MR. RUTHERFORD: I am not saying 

22 there is for sure --
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

158

1 DR. MAURO: That is even better.

2 MR. RUTHERFORD: -- but I would 

3 suspect there is. We could look at that and 

4 kind of address what you are indicating.

5 MR. KATZ: One of your issues is 

6 still unaddressed.

7 DR. OSTROW: Okay. Our finding 

8 11, we discussed briefing before. That is not 

9 really an issue; it is an observation, finding 

10 11.

11 MR. KATZ: No, I think there has 

12 been no discussion of that.

13 DR. MAURO: The raffinate issue.

14 MR. KATZ: That is what I was 

15 pointing to.

16 DR. OSTROW: Okay, Ted. Thanks.

17 MR. CRAWFORD: So finding 10, 

18 again, our response is that we are using Table 

19 3-3 of the TBD, which has uranium progeny 

20 ratios. So we are using all the uranium 

21 progeny in assuming internal exposure here.

22 DR. MAURO: I understand that. 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

159

1 When they talk about raffinates, I mean this 

2 is thorium-230 and radium-226 that might have 

3 been separated from uranium and represented a 

4 completely different mix that changes the 

5 assurance.

6 I believe your position is that 

7 all that stuff was removed.

8 MR. RUTHERFORD: That is his --

9 DR. MAURO: So any residue that 

10 you are looking at during the residual period, 

11 the presumption is, I guess you are assuming 

12 it is the normal mix of uranium ore, I 

13 believe?

14 MR. CRAWFORD: Right. Right.

15 DR. MAURO: So you've got some 

16 mix, and not necessarily material where the 

17 uranium is not there, and you are really only 

18 dealing with raffinates. When I say, 

19 "raffinates", that means the separated 

20 material, the thorium-230 and the radium-226.

21 I will say it again. That is the 

22 single issue that I say really you would like 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

160

1 to be able to put to bed: there are no 

2 raffinates at this site and why.

3 Then, all of a sudden, you are 

4 dealing with something that I consider to be a 

5 lot more tractable problem.

6 MR. RUTHERFORD: John, I think 

7 that it is pretty clear that at the end of 

8 operations that all the raffinate and all the 

9 ore material and byproducts were removed at 

10 that time. Then any holdup material that may 

11 have been present would have been removed when 

12 the equipment and stuff was removed from the 

13 site.

14 The only thing that would have 

15 been left would have been any minor mixture of 

16 surface contamination, which, again, we 

17 believe the D&D took care of.

18 We would also argue that the 

19 majority, I mean the overarching contaminant 

20 of concern is in the ratio that we have 

21 described.

22 DR. MAURO: Do you know what would 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

161

1 be helpful? If you do have, because I know 

2 they probably were not doing any isotopic 

3 analysis of samples certainly in these years, 

4 but perhaps when you do look at the FUSRAP 

5 data, which may have been collected I believe 

6 in the 1980s, they may have done isotopic 

7 analysis of various samples where you will get 

8 the breakdown of all the uraniums and thoriums 

9 and radium.

10 If that data is out there, and you 

11 say, listen, everything indicates that we are 

12 not dealing with raffinate, there is no 

13 raffinate. In other words, none of the 

14 samples were just pure radium or pure thorium 

15 with radium. They were all in the mix ratio 

16 that would indicate that we are dealing with 

17 the natural relative abundances that you would 

18 see in ore, and that you don't have 

19 raffinates. That would be one way to put this 

20 to bed, if that data is out there.

21 I hear your argument, and it is a 

22 common-sense argument that I would tend to 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

162

1 agree with, that it is unlikely. But it sure 

2 would be nice if you could come at it from 

3 another direction with other data sources that 

4 says: and here's another reason why we 

5 believe it is true -- if you have some data, 

6 more recent data, where they do do isotopic 

7 analysis of this area.

8 MR. RUTHERFORD: We can take a 

9 look at that, John.

10 DR. MAURO: Okay.

11 MR. RUTHERFORD: We've got to 

12 address each one anyway.

13 CHAIR ROESSLER: So we have taken 

14 care of 10, and, like Steve was saying, 11 

15 really --

16 MR. RUTHERFORD: That is just a 

17 clarity issue, a clarification.

18 CHAIR ROESSLER: Right. So where 

19 do we stand then on --

20 DR. OSTROW: If I may, I see two 

21 action items, okay?

22 One is that it's clear that NIOSH 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

163

1 is going to prepare a detailed response to our 

2 report of June 18th, and they are going to 

3 expand on what they had in their table that 

4 they produced yesterday, based on the 

5 conversation we had today. So that is the 

6 action item.

7 Then, of course, the Board will 

8 look at it, the Work Group will look at it, 

9 and SC&A will look at, whenever they produce 

10 that, and see if it is okay.

11 The second action item I see is an 

12 SC&A one, though it is just a small one that 

13 Josie brought up earlier in the discussion. 

14 In our report, we don't make it clear, or we 

15 don't really discuss -- we identify the 

16 petition issues. I think we came up with nine 

17 of them. Then we have a table where we list 

18 our 11 SC&A issues, but we don't really say, 

19 did we address, are we covering all of the SEC 

20 issues or not? Did we leave any out? And why 

21 we left them out. So it is a little bit of a 

22 map --
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

164

1 MR. ELLIOTT: You mean the 

2 petitioner issues?

3 DR. OSTROW: The petitioner 

4 issues, yes. Did we cover them all? Did we 

5 leave any out? So that I say we can do in the 

6 next couple of days. That is pretty easy just 

7 to go over the map.

8 I don't think we need to revise 

9 our report. We can just come out with like 

10 probably a two- or three-page supplement. We 

11 can call it a supplement, I guess, to this 

12 report, so they hang together. There's so 

13 many different reports -- an addendum -- that 

14 it is hard to keep track of them. So we will 

15 attach it to this report as an addendum, we 

16 will call it.

17 So those I see are the two action 

18 items that came out of this.

19 CHAIR ROESSLER: Thank you.

20 MEMBER BEACH: And then I have a 

21 question. Are we clear which ones are TBD 

22 issues and which ones are SECs?
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

165

1 MR. ELLIOTT: No, not yet.

2 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. Because I 

3 have got a couple written down, but I am not 

4 clear on that.

5 MR. RUTHERFORD: I think John's 

6 last words were, if we can resolve the 

7 raffinate issues, he thinks the other issues 

8 are tractable. Am I correct?

9 DR. MAURO: I'm leaning there. 

10 Yes. I guess the answer is yes.

11 I think that the other problems 

12 that we have are tractable because it appears 

13 that you then had the data, or ways of dealing 

14 with the data, that allow you to track the 

15 problem. But that is a conclusion that the 

16 Work Group has to come to. They are the ones, 

17 in the end, that say, okay, we see that the 

18 strategy -- let's say, whatever strategy you 

19 pick, that, of course, becomes -- right now, 

20 your strategy, we have problems with it. 

21 Right now, in our mind, the other strategy 

22 would be more robust.
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

166

1 Then let's say you were to 

2 implement the other strategy at that point in 

3 time and you would have to base that on 

4 certain data, the data that we really haven't 

5 talked very much about, you know, collected in 

6 the earlier years, and how that might serve 

7 you well.

8 I suspect that data is probably 

9 pretty good, but it would be inappropriate for 

10 me to conclude that right now. On the 

11 presumption that the data is pretty good, it 

12 makes it a tractable problem.

13 CHAIR ROESSLER: It appears that 

14 this would be a breaking point for lunch, but 

15 I think, before we do that, Ted, would you 

16 guide us as to what you think we will be doing 

17 when we come back from lunch, and how we can 

18 best focus this?

19 We have not heard, except 

20 occasionally, from Antoinette yet.

21 MR. KATZ: Well, first up, yes, 

22 Antoinette has an opportunity, if she wants to 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

167

1 in a complete way address the Work Group. 

2 That would be the first step.

3 MS. BONSIGNORE: Yes, I would like 

4 to do that.

5 MR. KATZ: Sure. Then, after 

6 that, there can be dialog about whatever 

7 issues might remain or in response to what 

8 Antoinette might raise. After that, then we 

9 can move to the next agenda item, once there

10 is no more to be said about this petition.

11 CHAIR ROESSLER: So, as far as you 

12 can see, we are then on to the site profile 

13 review followup with Steve's presentation on 

14 his August report and then NIOSH's response to 

15 that?

16 MR. KATZ: Yes, if the Work Group 

17 doesn't have more discussion about this 

18 petition, then yes.

19 MEMBER BEACH: I asked early on if 

20 it would be possible to put the two tables in 

21 NIOSH's report together, and I don't know if 

22 NIOSH wants to take that on or if it is 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

168

1 something --

2 MR. RUTHERFORD: Oh, you mean a 

3 chronology type of thing?

4 MEMBER BEACH: It is kind of to 

5 clarify what was done in each building, when 

6 it was D&Ded, because when you were talking 

7 about one, two, and three, some of it was 

8 D&Ded in the fifties; some of the reports said 

9 in 1997. It would just be nice to have that.

10 MR. RUTHERFORD: Put it together 

11 and pass it out more in the Work Group, not a 

12 revision --

13 MEMBER BEACH: Within a Work 

14 Group. No, just a Work Group, yes. Yes, that 

15 would be helpful.

16 CHAIR ROESSLER: So, in addition 

17 to SC&A kind of blending their two tables, 

18 which were the eleven findings and the nine 

19 issues, then NIOSH is going to blend the two 

20 tables in the --

21 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes, the tables 

22 on pages 14 and 16.
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

169

1 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay.

2 MEMBER BEACH: Thank you.

3 MS. BONSIGNORE: I just have a 

4 procedural question. If, at the end of all of 

5 this discussion, NIOSH comes to the 

6 conclusion -- would there ever be a situation 

7 where NIOSH would issue a revised PER?

8 MR. KATZ: A revised evaluation 

9 report, do you mean?

10 MS. BONSIGNORE: Petition 

11 evaluation report.

12 MR. ELLIOTT: No, not unless there 

13 is new information to consider.

14 MR. KATZ: No, no, no. I mean 

15 there can be --

16 MR. ELLIOTT: An evaluation 

17 report.

18 MR. KATZ: Wait. Let me just --

19 MS. BONSIGNORE: I'm sorry, Ted.

20 If you were to incorporate some of 

21 the ideas that John has been suggesting and 

22 Steve has been suggesting, wouldn't that call 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

170

1 for a revised PER?

2 MR. RUTHERFORD: That would be in 

3 the site profile. That would be addressed in 

4 our site profile revision that we would do.

5 I mean you could argue, I guess 

6 someone could argue that, well, the model we 

7 presented in our ER, we changed that, but I 

8 think that the actual model change would be 

9 addressed in the site profile, whether there 

10 is addition --

11 MS. BONSIGNORE: And what would 

12 that --

13 MR. RUTHERFORD: I'm sorry. Go 

14 ahead.

15 MS. BONSIGNORE: And what would 

16 that mean for NIOSH's recommendation on the 

17 SEC petition?

18 MR. RUTHERFORD: Our 

19 recommendation would not change. If it was 

20 determined that it was a change in our model, 

21 if we were changing our model for dose 

22 reconstruction, our recommendation is still 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

171

1 the same, that dose reconstruction is feasible 

2 for the class period.

3 It would only be that we would 

4 modify the site profile to address dose 

5 reconstructions, and we would ultimately end 

6 up having to re-evaluate claims that were 

7 completed under the previous site profile.

8 MR. ELLIOTT: That is a PER. I 

9 know you are using a PER, a petition 

10 evaluation report, but PER to us means a 

11 program evaluation review.

12 MS. BONSIGNORE: Evaluation 

13 report, right. Yes. Right. Right.

14 Okay. But I guess what I'm trying 

15 to get out here, probably not well, is, in 

16 terms of the information that you have in the 

17 petition evaluation report now, and in terms 

18 of what the statutory definition of when that 

19 petition evaluation report had to be produced, 

20 if you come to the conclusion that you need to 

21 revise the TBD, in light of these discussions, 

22 what rights do the petitioners have in terms 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

172

1 of arguing that, well, you don't have it right 

2 now? So we have met our burden in terms of 

3 the statutory time period and you haven't.

4 MR. KATZ: Maybe I can help 

5 clarify here. The evaluation report that OCAS 

6 produces is a starting point for the 

7 deliberations of the Board.

8 As a result of the deliberations 

9 of the Board, OCAS can do a number of things 

10 that come, then, along in the process. There 

11 are occasions where they have added addendums 

12 to their evaluation report, where they have 

13 changed methodology, changed findings, have 

14 new findings to add to the evaluation report. 

15 They might do that.

16 They might do one or all of these 

17 things. They might also, as they mentioned, 

18 change their TBD as a result of the dialog 

19 around the SEC evaluation, because you are 

20 discussing all issues that affect dose 

21 reconstruction as well. But it all depends on 

22 the substantive findings of the deliberations.
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

173

1 Then, as far as the petitioner 

2 having sort of access to all information, the 

3 petitioner, of course, has access to the 

4 transcripts of the dialogue. So you have all 

5 that substance of what's been discussed and 

6 why courses have been changed, or what have 

7 you, in response to the dialogue.

8 So you have all that mass of 

9 information at your disposal, and you have the 

10 opportunity to interact with the Board 

11 throughout this process, until the Board comes 

12 to a conclusion about the petition evaluation.

13 MS. BONSIGNORE: Right. I 

14 understand that. What I am trying to get at 

15 is, in terms of the rights of the petitioner, 

16 what is the end-point? I mean, how long a 

17 process?

18 You know, I have people to answer 

19 to.

20 MR. KATZ: Sure.

21 MS. BONSIGNORE: And they want to 

22 know, well, are we going to be in limbo for 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

174

1 three years, four years, like Bethlehem Steel 

2 has been, or is there a time period when the 

3 Advisory Board says, and together, the 

4 Department of Health and Human Services says, 

5 well, you know, there's got to be a beginning 

6 and an end to this?

7 MR. KATZ: As far as the rules go, 

8 the Board does not have an imposed time 

9 requirement on how long it carries out its 

10 deliberations. Certainly, the Board is 

11 concerned about timeliness, but they put a 

12 premium on thoroughness over timeliness in 

13 terms of the Board's general sort of way of 

14 dealing with this problem.

15 So you are correct, there are 

16 petitions that have been around with the Board 

17 for quite a while, but there is no statutory 

18 limitation on how long the Board deliberates 

19 about a petition. There isn't.

20 MS. BONSIGNORE: Right. Yes, I 

21 realize that. I guess I am suggesting that 

22 that is a problem in terms of something being 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

175

1 claimant-favorable. How long do you expect 

2 workers, claimants, petitioners to wait?

3 MR. KATZ: Well, I guess, for 

4 context about this, I mean, again, the Board 

5 tries to get through these deliberations as 

6 quickly as possible. The Board has autonomy 

7 to do this process at whatever rate it can do 

8 it. So the agency doesn't put any constraints 

9 on the Board in that respect, except, of 

10 course, the Board asks for information from 

11 the agency, and there is time involved in 

12 providing information to support that 

13 deliberation.

14 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay.

15 MR. ELLIOTT: In this instance, 

16 there are no claims pending. So, from a 

17 program perspective -- I understand your 

18 perspective on claimants waiting to find out 

19 what the outcome of this process is -- but 

20 from the program perspective, we are not 

21 pending claims. We are not holding claims.

22 In fact, I did go back to the DOL 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

176

1 website and I did look at it, and there are, 

2 according to DOL, there is a 58 percent 

3 compensation rate. Because there are 236 

4 cases that have been sent to NIOSH for dose 

5 reconstruction; 137 have been done, according 

6 to DOL.

7 Our input on 46 percent is based 

8 upon we've got all of the claims reconstructed 

9 except one right now. That is where the 46 

10 percent comes.

11 So DOL's numbers don't report all 

12 of the work that we have completed as we are 

13 reporting it.

14 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay.

15 MR. ELLIOTT: But I just want you 

16 to know that, as far as the program is 

17 concerned, we are not holding up claims 

18 awaiting on this process.

19 MS. BONSIGNORE: Right. Well, I 

20 suppose that depends on how you define 

21 "pending". I think the people whose claims 

22 have been denied would say their claims are 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

177

1 pending.

2 MR. ELLIOTT: Well, "pending" in 

3 our terminology is that we are standing on a 

4 claim and it's not moving anywhere.

5 MS. BONSIGNORE: Right. I 

6 understand that, but in terms of, if there's 

7 new data that would require NIOSH to redose 

8 denied claims, then technically those claims 

9 would still be open. There's always the 

10 possibility of that. That is the people that 

11 I represent.

12 The people who are complaining to 

13 me are not the people who have been 

14 compensated.

15 MR. ELLIOTT: Sure.

16 MS. BONSIGNORE: The people who 

17 are complaining to me are the people whose 

18 claims have been denied --

19 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes.

20 MS. BONSIGNORE: -- and are 

21 suffering. So that is what I am talking 

22 about.
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

178

1 MR. ELLIOTT: I understand your 

2 perspective.

3 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay.

4 MR. ELLIOTT: But, technically, 

5 the claim, they've got a decision. So, until 

6 NIOSH identifies a change in its site profile 

7 or its dose reconstruction approach, and seeks 

8 to reopen those denied claims, they are 

9 standing there with a final decision. They 

10 have completed the deliberation process --

11 adjudication process, for the claim up to that 

12 point, up to where we identify a change that 

13 would result in additional dose perhaps.

14 MS. BONSIGNORE: Right. I 

15 understand.

16 MR. KATZ: I would just note for 

17 all claims that NIOSH has done throughout the 

18 whole complex, in effect, what you are saying 

19 applies to all of them because at any point 

20 that NIOSH might revise a TBD for any site, it 

21 always has to go through this analysis to see 

22 if those denied claims would be affected, in 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

179

1 which case they would be reopened.

2 MR. ELLIOTT: I understand your 

3 perspective and your claimants' perspective 

4 who has been denied. But let me put a little 

5 context around that perspective.

6 There are 611 claims for Hanford 

7 that are truly pended at NIOSH, awaiting the 

8 process of the Board's Work Group deliberation 

9 and our ability, our efforts to retrieve 

10 enough information to do dose. Those people I 

11 am more concerned about because they have been 

12 waiting a long time without any decision 

13 whatsoever.

14 So I think it is unfortunate for 

15 everybody concerned, but those people are in a 

16 worse state than the Linde folks who have got 

17 at least one determination made on their claim 

18 at this point. These folks, the 611 at 

19 Hanford, have no determination.

20 MS. BONSIGNORE: Right. Well, but 

21 I would submit to you that the claims that 

22 have been denied don't feel that they have 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

180

1 received a fair determination.

2 MR. ELLIOTT: I understand that 

3 perspective, too.

4 MR. CRAWFORD: That is always 

5 going to be there.

6 MR. ELLIOTT: That is always going 

7 to be there.

8 MS. BONSIGNORE: I understand 

9 that. And the fact that there is this 

10 constant, ongoing reevaluation of documents, 

11 you find new documents all the time, there are 

12 constant revisions, this, to me, seems just in 

13 terms of fairness to the claimants to be not 

14 fair.

15 If you had all the possible data 

16 before you and you made a final determination, 

17 then that would be a fair determination. But 

18 the fact that there are constant data capture 

19 efforts that go on, and go on year after year 

20 -- you're finding more documents. In this 

21 case, you have renovation contracts that 

22 haven't been reviewed. I don't see how that 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

181

1 is fair to the claimants in terms of saying to 

2 them, well, you have received a final fair 

3 determination.

4 MR. KATZ: Antoinette, let me 

5 explain to you something general about the way 

6 the whole program was designed, because the 

7 procedures in the regs that allow for this 

8 process of continually finding more 

9 information and improving dose reconstructions 

10 based on new information, I mean that only 

11 goes to the benefit of claimants.

12 Because any claim that has been 

13 paid on the basis of old information, that 

14 stays paid. So the opportunity to find new 

15 information and, as a consequence, be able to 

16 reconsider claims and possibly pay more claims 

17 is only a net gain for claimants.

18 MS. BONSIGNORE: I'm sorry, are 

19 you suggesting that, because when you find new 

20 information, you don't take the money back 

21 from people who were compensated, that that is 

22 evidence that the program is claimant-
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

182

1 favorable?

2 MR. KATZ: This isn't about 

3 claimant -- I mean the door was left open to 

4 find new information because it is well5 recognized before this program ever started 

6 that you find, when you go out and you do 

7 research, whatever, you are always finding new 

8 information from these sites, given the 

9 enormity of this program, and so on, and the 

10 complexity of records-holdings and all that. 

11 You are always finding new holdings.

12 My only point is that, when new 

13 information is taken into account and added to 

14 these, the only cases that are reconsidered 

15 are cases that were denied.

16 MS. BONSIGNORE: Right.

17 MR. KATZ: And that's with an aim 

18 to approve cases that were denied based on new 

19 information that was newly-found. That is 

20 purely a benefit.

21 MS. BONSIGNORE: I understood what 

22 you said. I am just saying that I don't think 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

183

1 the fact that the program is set up to not 

2 knock on someone's door who was compensated, 

3 who maybe shouldn't have been compensated, is 

4 what you are saying, because of new 

5 information --

6 MR. KATZ: No, I'm saying that a 

7 person who was denied can get paid based on 

8 new information.

9 MS. BONSIGNORE: Right.

10 MR. KATZ: That's a benefit.

11 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay. I think 

12 you are missing my point, but that's fine.

13 MR. ELLIOTT: I think you latched 

14 onto what Ted said about some people getting 

15 paid that, if new information came to light, 

16 they would not have been paid.

17 MS. BONSIGNORE: Right.

18 MR. ELLIOTT: And it is not NIOSH 

19 who makes these payments. In fact, NIOSH has 

20 in several instances identified either 

21 information or approaches that, if they were 

22 used at the time the dose was reconstructed, 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

184

1 there are some claims that didn't deserve 

2 compensation. We are not advocating that that 

3 be taken back.

4 MS. BONSIGNORE: Oh, I know that.

5 MR. ELLIOTT: We don't want to see 

6 that.

7 MS. BONSIGNORE: Of course not.

8 MR. ELLIOTT: And it's DOL's 

9 responsibility to make that decision. I don't 

10 think they take it lightly, either. I don't 

11 know of any particular instance where they 

12 have retrieved money. They have that ability. 

13 They can go do that, but I don't think they 

14 have done it.

15 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay.

16 CHAIR ROESSLER: Can we decide on 

17 how long we will break? Would an hour be 

18 sufficient time?

19 DR. OSTROW: Gen, can I just make 

20 one very quick suggestion before we leave 

21 this?

22 Okay, now we have three action 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

185

1 items. Would it benefit us to get a timeline 

2 for this, you know, a schedule? Should that 

3 go with the action items?

4 CHAIR ROESSLER: I think that, 

5 once we get back here this afternoon and wrap 

6 up, we'll need to do that. Yes, I have the 

7 three items, and you can help me with the 

8 wording on them to make sure we have them 

9 right.

10 I wanted to ask a question, if 

11 John Mauro and Mike Gibson will be with us 

12 this afternoon.

13 DR. MAURO: I will be here this 

14 afternoon.

15 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay. Mike, are 

16 you still there?

17 MEMBER GIBSON: Yes, I will be 

18 here this afternoon.

19 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay. Then I 

20 have 12:33, approximately.

21 MR. KATZ: Until 1:30?

22 CHAIR ROESSLER: 1:30? Okay.
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

186

1 MR. KATZ: Okay, I'll break the 

2 line, and we will reconvene at 1:30.

3 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

4 matter went off the record at 12:33 p.m. and 

5 resumed at 1:33 p.m.)

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

187

1 A-F-T-E-R-N-O-O-N S-E-S-S-I-O-N

2 1:33 p.m.

3 MR. KATZ: So this is the Advisory 

4 Board on Radiation and Worker Health. It is 

5 the Linde Work Group, and we are reconvening 

6 after a lunch break.

7 Let me check on the phone on a 

8 couple of individuals, to make sure they are 

9 with us.

10 John Mauro, are you?

11 DR. MAURO: Yes, I am. I'm here.

12 MR. KATZ: Great. And how about 

13 Mike Gibson?

14 MEMBER GIBSON: Yes, I am here, 

15 Ted.

16 MR. KATZ: Great, Mike.

17 Let me just do one more check, 

18 too. Is there another Linde petitioner on the 

19 line with us now?

20 (No response.)

21 Okay. No.

22 So we are reconvening. We've 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

188

1 gotten through NIOSH presentations and SC&A 

2 presentations and discussion about Petition 

3 107. It is now the opportunity for the 

4 petitioners, Antoinette Bonsignore, to 

5 present.

6 MS. BONSIGNORE: Well, most of the 

7 general issues I wanted to raise, I raised 

8 before we broke for lunch. I just have a few 

9 technical questions that I wanted to get some 

10 clarification on.

11 The first is about the factor-of12 eight reduction. The air concentration 

13 measurements were taken during the D&D time 

14 period, were taken during the vacuuming 

15 activities. Am I correct in that statement?

16 MR. CRAWFORD: I believe that is 

17 correct.

18 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay. This was 

19 not the only activity that took place during 

20 the residual period. As I mentioned earlier, 

21 a lot of the workers did jackhammering of 

22 floors and other types of renovation work.
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

189

1 So can you please explain the 

2 justification for relying on measurements that 

3 only take into account vacuuming activities?

4 MR. CRAWFORD: Basically, I 

5 believe what was done was we took the highest 

6 readings from any of the activities. I 

7 believe they found that vacuuming happened to 

8 be that activity. In other words, we looked 

9 at all of these and then found the highest and 

10 used that.

11 MS. BONSIGNORE: So the vacuuming 

12 activities would have yielded higher results 

13 than pneumatic jack drilling of --

14 MR. CRAWFORD: Apparently. I can 

15 look that up again.

16 In those days, you have to 

17 remember they didn't have HEPA filters on 

18 their vacuums. So there was a lot of exhaust 

19 dust coming out as well. They captured some 

20 of the dust inside, but it would have been 

21 pretty -- it lofted a lot of material, I'm 

22 sure.
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

190

1 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay.

2 MR. CRAWFORD: But I can check 

3 that for you and make sure.

4 MR. ELLIOTT: Do you recall, 

5 Chris, if some of the results were related to 

6 these kinds of activities other than 

7 vacuuming, jackhammering or drilling, or were 

8 they that specific?

9 MR. CRAWFORD: They did capture 

10 those activities, yes. They did breathing 

11 zone samples from each one of the activities.

12 MS. BONSIGNORE: The second issue 

13 was that, with regard to the uranium progeny 

14 during the residual period, NIOSH seems to be 

15 saying that the sampling ratio was taken from 

16 storm and sanitary sewers for the uranium 

17 progeny ratios?

18 MR. CRAWFORD: I don't recall 

19 that. Those were much later measurements, I 

20 think --

21 MS. BONSIGNORE: Right.

22 MR. CRAWFORD: -- that such 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

191

1 measurements were made.

2 But the progeny, which we refer to 

3 Table 3-3 in the TBD document, I believe those 

4 were made from much earlier measurements, not, 

5 in other words, from the -- I think the 

6 measurements you are citing are from much 

7 later.

8 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay. Because I 

9 am trying to understand the connection between 

10 relying on sampling from storm and sanitary 

11 sewers versus what would have been on walls, 

12 rafters, that kind of thing, during the 

13 residual period.

14 MR. CRAWFORD: Well, the drains --

15 let me put it this way: materials that go 

16 into the drains don't usually come back out as 

17 much. We would expect to see more 

18 resuspension from something on the walls and 

19 the floors of the building than we would from 

20 a drain, which, after all, might be a 

21 considerable distance down from the building.

22 MS. BONSIGNORE: Right. So, well, 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

192

1 that is sort of my point. Relying on data 

2 from storm and sanitary sewage wouldn't really 

3 be representative of what workers were exposed 

4 to during the residual period, from 

5 resuspension from walls, rafters, that kind of 

6 thing.

7 MR. CRAWFORD: Well, I don't think 

8 that would be a valid comparison, no.

9 MR. RUTHERFORD: Now my question 

10 is: where are you getting this information 

11 from?

12 MS. BONSIGNORE: I believe this is 

13 from the 1976 and 1981 data, but I would have 

14 to check that. But I believe that that is 

15 where I got this from.

16 If you could just explain that. I 

17 may not be right about that, but --

18 MR. RUTHERFORD: Okay. We will 

19 look into it.

20 MR. ELLIOTT: It is highly 

21 unlikely --

22 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes.
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

193

1 MR. ELLIOTT: -- that we would tie 

2 our approach to data that comes out of a 

3 drain.

4 MR. CRAWFORD: I don't see 

5 anything in the ER, Antoinette, that suggests 

6 that we used the drain data.

7 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay. I'll take 

8 a closer look at that. I had a health 

9 physicist take a look at some of this stuff, 

10 too, and he provided me some information. I 

11 may be misinterpreting what he --

12 MR. CRAWFORD: My memory of that 

13 report, by the way, is that is the same report 

14 where they did the Ellicott Creek readings and 

15 that sort of thing. It was sort of a sitewide 

16 and areawide survey?

17 MS. BONSIGNORE: I don't know. 

18 Okay, I will take a closer look at that.

19 Then, in terms of the inhalation 

20 rate, NIOSH in the site profiles is using a 

21 value of 1.2 -- I hope I am saying this right 

22 -- meters --
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

194

1 MR. ELLIOTT: Cubed.

2 MS. BONSIGNORE: -- cubed. Thank 

3 you. Cubic meters. Thank you. One point two 

4 cubic meters per hour, and the U.S. EPA 

5 recommends for construction workers doing 

6 moderate work 1.5 cubic meters per hour. Can 

7 you explain why the EPA's recommendation is 

8 not utilized?

9 MR. CRAWFORD: I don't know why or 

10 from what source we picked that.

11 Mutty?

12 MR. SHARFI: It is a breathing 

13 rate question?

14 MR. CRAWFORD: Yes, a breathing 

15 rate question.

16 MR. SHARFI: That was something 

17 that I thought that Stu was working on with 

18 the construction worker OTIB.

19 MR. RUTHERFORD: I am sorry, I 

20 missed the question.

21 MS. BONSIGNORE: The U.S. EPA 

22 recommends using 1.5 cubic feet per hour for 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

195

1 construction workers doing moderate work, 

2 whereas in the 2006 and 2008 site profiles 

3 NIOSH relies on 1.2.

4 MR. RUTHERFORD: For the residual 

5 period?

6 MR. CRAWFORD: Breathing rate.

7 MR. SHARFI: Breathing rate. So 

8 it is, basically, light versus heavy 

9 breathing.

10 MR. RUTHERFORD: Okay. Yes, that 

11 is more of a site complex-wide issue that Jim 

12 has on his plate, Dr. Neton has on his plate. 

13 So I can't really answer it.

14 If the breathing rate is in 

15 question, it wouldn't be in question solely 

16 for Linde. It would be in question for other 

17 sites.

18 MS. BONSIGNORE: Right. Right. 

19 Okay.

20 Also, in terms of the radon model 

21 that is used, do you have information on the 

22 ventilation rates for the radon data for the 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

196

1 buildings that that data was taken from?

2 MR. CRAWFORD: Not that I am aware 

3 of.

4 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay. Do you 

5 assume it is stagnant? In the model, do you 

6 assume a stagnant ventilation rate as 

7 claimant-favorable?

8 MR. CRAWFORD: Well, let's put it 

9 another way. The radon readings that we do 

10 have --

11 MS. BONSIGNORE: Right.

12 MR. CRAWFORD: -- we are using 

13 actual data. In other words, we are not 

14 trying to construct a model and assume a 

15 refresh rate in the air or anything like that.

16 Of course, a warehouse environment 

17 is going to be very difficult to model in some 

18 regards. A typical warehouse is going to have 

19 truck-sized doors to open. In other words, it 

20 is not like an office building where you have 

21 a single person-sized door to worry about and 

22 it is closed most of the time.
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

197

1 So all I can say is, we look at 

2 the building and we look at the data we have 

3 for it. But how much air refresh rate is 

4 assumed for Joe's early values, I don't know. 

5 We are assuming a static situation, 

6 essentially.

7 MR. RUTHERFORD: Actually, we are 

8 taking -- and correct me if I am wrong -- the 

9 highest radon data we have and assume it is 

10 that data across the time period. So there 

11 are lower readings in other places.

12 I know your concern is, it sounds 

13 to me, that, okay, fluctuations in ventilation 

14 would affect that. I agree that, with the 

15 data we have, we are taking the highest value.

16 DR. MAURO: This is John Mauro. I 

17 might be able to help out a little.

18 It may be that this question 

19 emerged because there has been a great deal of 

20 discussion on radon models as applied to 

21 blocks where air turnover rate, of course, was 

22 a very, very important issue. However, I 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

198

1 don't believe this issue is at play here 

2 because we have radon measurements.

3 MR. RUTHERFORD: I agree.

4 DR. MAURO: So the real question 

5 is, when you have radon measurements, do you 

6 have sufficient measurements that allow you to 

7 place a plausible up and down on what the 

8 chronic exposure might have been to a worker?

9 So the air turnover rate is really 

10 not an issue in this particular application.

11 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay. Those are 

12 the questions I had.

13 CHAIR ROESSLER: Do you need some 

14 followup on the first two?

15 MS. BONSIGNORE: Well, Chris 

16 mentioned that he would look into those 

17 issues.

18 CHAIR ROESSLER: So you know which 

19 ones?

20 MR. CRAWFORD: Right, and I also 

21 took another look at the ER. During the 

22 renovation work, the method used to estimate 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

199

1 the airborne contamination work -- I'm talking 

2 about the sixties renovations now -- was to 

3 take the 1950s data during decontamination and 

4 reduce it by a factor, based on the fact that 

5 material was removed during the 1950s. So it 

6 would be less, is the theory, in the sixties. 

7 In other words, it wasn't based on sump data 

8 or anything like that.

9 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay.

10 MR. CRAWFORD: And we have the one 

11 general area air sample in 1976 to go on, 

12 again, not based on sump data. That was 

13 volume air sampling.

14 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay. Thank you.

15 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay, then I 

16 think we are ready to get back to the 

17 documents we are presenting. According to my 

18 schedule, Steve is up again.

19 MR. KATZ: Do you want to talk 

20 about time frames for this before you want to 

21 move on?

22 CHAIR ROESSLER: Before? Sure.
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

200

1 Well, we have the three -- I have 

2 them here somewhere. I had them here. 

3 Anyway, we have three action items.

4 One of them, the first one, NIOSH 

5 was going to respond, give a detailed response 

6 to the June 8th report to sort of add to or 

7 detail out the report you already put together 

8 earlier in the week. That was Action Item 1.

9 SC&A was going to, in your report, 

10 Steve, respond to Josie's suggestions that you 

11 produce an addendum to your report. I think 

12 my understanding is pretty much blend Table 1 

13 and Table 2, so everything would kind of 

14 follow a sequence of items better.

15 Then the third item is in NIOSH's 

16 site profile, that page 14 --

17 MR. SHARFI: Fourteen and 16, yes.

18 CHAIR ROESSLER: -- and mine comes 

19 out on page 17, but basically Tables 5-1 and 

20 5-3, is that what your understanding is, 

21 LaVon?

22 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes.
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

201

1 CHAIR ROESSLER: And I didn't put 

2 down what you are going to do with them, but I 

3 think it was going to be the same thing.

4 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes. We are 

5 going to actually kind of merge them together 

6 and give a better chronology of events.

7 MR. SHARFI: So it is 14 and 16 of 

8 the ER or of the site profile?

9 CHAIR ROESSLER: Of the ER.

10 I think the timetable depends on 

11 when NIOSH and SC&A can --

12 DR. OSTROW: Excuse me. I think 

13 we just added two new action items after 

14 Antoinette's talk, two things that NIOSH is 

15 supposed to respond back to. One was on this 

16 factor-of-eight reduction, about vacuuming 

17 activities, whether that was --

18 MR. KATZ: Based on the highest 

19 levels or not.

20 DR. OSTROW: Yes, that was the 

21 bounding case. The other one had to do with 

22 uranium progeny during the residual period, 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

202

1 the ratios, and where did they come from? 

2 Were they from storm and sanitary sewers or 

3 where, where they were from, basically?

4 MR. RUTHERFORD: I think those 

5 will actually be answered as well, anyway, in 

6 our report because the ratios are going to 

7 have to be discussed partly in support of 

8 finding No. 10, and the other item, which was 

9 the first one --

10 CHAIR ROESSLER: Factor-of-eight, 

11 that is also a part of --

12 MR. RUTHERFORD: Factor-of-eight, 

13 that has also been a part of our discussion as 

14 well.

15 CHAIR ROESSLER: So that really 

16 comes under Item No. 1 that we went to before.

17 MR. RUTHERFORD: Right, right.

18 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay. So, NIOSH, 

19 what is a good timetable for you?

20 MR. RUTHERFORD: Well, I think 

21 what we need to do is, one, we need to go back 

22 and get -- I don't think we want to give you a 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

203

1 date, a true date, today without going back 

2 and talking to our contractor, finding out 

3 resources, and from a schedule standpoint, 

4 where we can come back with final answers for 

5 those.

6 So, if we could give you a date 

7 maybe next week, that would be better because 

8 that would give us time to get back, get with 

9 our Linde team, with our ORAU contract team, 

10 and ask them for an estimate on completion.

11 CHAIR ROESSLER: We have a 

12 teleconference on September 8th.

13 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes.

14 CHAIR ROESSLER: If you had an 

15 answer before that, I could incorporate it 

16 into the Work Group report.

17 MR. RUTHERFORD: Okay, we will 

18 shoot for that.

19 CHAIR ROESSLER: And, Steve?

20 DR. OSTROW: Well, two weeks.

21 CHAIR ROESSLER: Two weeks.

22 DR. OSTROW: We have got to do a 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

204

1 little internal review, but this is fairly 

2 easy to do. Two weeks.

3 CHAIR ROESSLER: Within two weeks.

4 So, once we have this timetable, 

5 then we will need to work that into what our 

6 next step as a Work Group will be.

7 DR. OSTROW: On NIOSH's timeline, 

8 the third item, that is separate than Item No. 

9 1, right?

10 CHAIR ROESSLER: Well, I thought 

11 they were going to address that also on your 

12 timeline, Steve, yes.

13 DR. OSTROW: Are you going to roll 

14 the chronology into your response to us? Was 

15 that supposed to be a separate --

16 MR. RUTHERFORD: We can just roll 

17 it into the response. It would probably be 

18 easier. That way, it is all in one thing.

19 I guess if we get it done, that 

20 portion done sooner, we could get it out. But 

21 I think, ultimately, all the review and 

22 everything, if it all comes out in one report, 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

205

1 I think that is probably easier to track.

2 CHAIR ROESSLER: Then we will take 

3 the next step after we get that. So we will

4 know by next Tuesday or whatever September 8th 

5 is.

6 MR. KATZ: And then we can plan 

7 another Work Group meeting.

8 CHAIR ROESSLER: Then we will plan 

9 another Work Group meeting.

10 We could, if we know, it would be 

11 good, while we are here, if we could plan

12 another Work Group meeting. Maybe we should 

13 address that at the end of the session today, 

14 to see if we could come up with a tentative 

15 time.

16 MR. KATZ: Although we would have 

17 to have a rough guess as to when these things 

18 could be delivered from OCAS to be able to do 

19 that, I mean whether it is weeks or months, or 

20 I don't know what it is.

21 CHAIR ROESSLER: Yes. I suspect 

22 we are looking at not another Work Group 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

206

1 meeting until after the Board meeting in 

2 October? Is that reasonable? So we are 

3 probably looking at --

4 MR. RUTHERFORD: I think the 

5 November/December time frame, we should 

6 have --

7 MR. KATZ: It doesn't seem like 

8 that there is an enormous amount to do in 

9 these responses really.

10 MR. RUTHERFORD: No, no.

11 CHAIR ROESSLER: So maybe we could 

12 get it done before the Board meeting. Let's 

13 just see.

14 MR. RUTHERFORD: Until I see where 

15 our resources are -- because, remember, coming 

16 up to a Board meeting, we are driven on 

17 preparing for that.

18 CHAIR ROESSLER: Maybe what we 

19 should do, because you have to get this 

20 announced, is to pick a tentative date after 

21 the October Board meeting.

22 MR. KATZ: We can. We might as 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

207

1 well give OCAS the chance --

2 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay.

3 MR. KATZ: -- until this Friday to 

4 figure out what their guess is, so that we 

5 could schedule. Otherwise, we may be wasting 

6 our time scheduling a date that just doesn't 

7 work.

8 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay. I thought 

9 it would be easier with us here, but --

10 MR. KATZ: We don't want to give 

11 it more time than we need to, either, so that 

12 we can get it done as quickly as possible. So 

13 we might as well hear from them on Friday. 

14 Then, next Tuesday, we can book it.

15 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay.

16 DR. MAURO: Say, Gen, this is 

17 John.

18 I've got a bit of a controversial 

19 question, if you don't mind.

20 (Laughter.)

21 CHAIR ROESSLER: Gen is not here.

22 (Laughter.)
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

208

1 DR. MAURO: Right now, I know that 

2 Bomber and the NIOSH folks are planning to 

3 mount their arguments of why the current 

4 approach, which basically starts with the 1976 

5 -- it heavily depends on the 1976 data -- you 

6 know, they feel pretty confident that they can 

7 make their case.

8 Now the controversial question is 

9 this: in my mind, let's say we can go down a 

10 very linear process. Wait until we see that, 

11 regroup, talk, maybe everything will be fine. 

12 But maybe it won't.

13 Sometimes when you have an SEC --

14 the big question is, is it possible that there 

15 are other strategies that would work? Stay 

16 with me for a minute.

17 Is it possible for NIOSH to 

18 explore strategies that are anchored in the 

19 1950 data that would begin the process, the 

20 more traditional OTIB-0070 approach? In 

21 effect, saying that there are a number of 

22 alternative strategies for coming at this 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

209

1 problem. The preferred strategy, let's say, 

2 is NIOSH's strategy, where they would work 

3 from the 1976 data -- I will call it that --

4 as being the way in which they come after 

5 problems because they think that is the most 

6 reasonable, scientifically-sound approach.

7 But there are other methods that 

8 could also be used which are more 

9 conservative, perhaps to the point where NIOSH 

10 feels it is too conservative. But it would be 

11 another approach.

12 Where I am going with this is, it 

13 would be really nice to get to the point 

14 where, if we are going to meet again in 

15 November or December, which is quite some time 

16 from now, that we could come to an agreement 

17 that says we believe these doses could be 

18 reconstructed.

19 But we are not really at the point 

20 yet where we are in full agreement on which 

21 strategy is the most appropriate. That almost 

22 solves it. That is why it is controversial.
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

210

1 That almost solves the SEC 

2 question. Then it just becomes purely, what's 

3 the best way to do this? We can do it. It is 

4 just a matter of, what's the best way to do 

5 it?

6 MR. KATZ: I mean, it certainly 

7 would expedite the SEC process.

8 DR. MAURO: That's why I brought 

9 up. Like I said, we have never done anything 

10 like that before. It would be a bit unusual, 

11 but it might actually expedite the 

12 decisionmaking process.

13 MR. KATZ: I mean, the downside is 

14 it would take OCAS more work to develop that 

15 alternative strategy, for if the Work Group at 

16 the end of the day -- and OCAS at the end of 

17 the day -- doesn't think the initial strategy 

18 works, that means they also have to develop an 

19 alternative strategy. That will take them 

20 longer to get back to the Work Group.

21 CHAIR ROESSLER: However, in the 

22 long run, it would take less time.
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

211

1 MR. KATZ: In the long run, it 

2 wouldn't be, right --

3 CHAIR ROESSLER: But is OCAS going 

4 to determine whether their current strategy is 

5 not going to work, or is it going to require a 

6 Work Group meeting where we call in SC&A? My 

7 understanding is that SC&A needs to be 

8 satisfied before we present this to the Work 

9 Group and the Board.

10 MR. KATZ: I mean, it is really, 

11 again, OCAS has its right to make its 

12 determinations at the end of the day as to 

13 what it believes is correct. SC&A advises the 

14 Work Group, and the Work Group has its right 

15 to make its findings as to what it believes is 

16 appropriate, you know, correct, in terms of 

17 answering these questions.

18 So it is not something that should 

19 be resolved between OCAS and SC&A. At the end 

20 of the day, the Work Group has to decide what 

21 it believes is correct, but OCAS can decide 

22 where it stands on this, certainly, on its 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

212

1 own.

2 But I guess OCAS just needs to 

3 respond and say whether it is willing or not, 

4 whether it would be time-saving or time-losing 

5 to work up an alternative, should it decide 

6 down the road that its first alternative isn't 

7 actually the best route.

8 MR. ELLIOTT: I just don't think 

9 we are prepared here today. We heard, it was 

10 good for us to hear SC&A's concerns and 

11 Antoinette's concerns. I don't think we are 

12 in a position, though, to commit one way or 

13 another until we have gone back and done our 

14 homework and reported out on that.

15 If it comes to pass that we have 

16 to change because we find that these concerns 

17 are valid and we missed the mark, then 

18 certainly we are going to come back with what 

19 we think is the resolution to that. How long 

20 that takes us, I am not prepared to commit.

21 MR. KATZ: Sure. No, no, no.

22 MR. ELLIOTT: I can tell you the 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

213

1 raffinate issue -- I think we all want to see 

2 that thing answered. I have asked my folks --

3 I talked to Steve a little bit about it at 

4 lunch.

5 I guess we are hard-pressed to 

6 identify in this process that happened at 

7 Linde where a separation of the ore occurred 

8 that would have concentrated any radioactive 

9 material. The refuse, as we understand it, I 

10 think, the refuse that was generated from this 

11 process didn't have that kind of a separation 

12 aspect that would have concentrated 

13 radioactive materials, unlike what we have 

14 seen at Mallinckrodt.

15 So we need to put that to bed by 

16 documenting the characteristics of the process 

17 in that regard. Hopefully, I think we can do 

18 that.

19 If that happens, I think we have 

20 handled -- what? -- the first three --

21 MR. RUTHERFORD: Well, I think 

22 that addresses one big concern that John had 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

214

1 upfront.

2 MR. ELLIOTT: So what is left, if 

3 that is the way it plays out, what's left, I 

4 think we've got, again, our homework to do to 

5 explain why we are positioned where we are 

6 positioned.

7 MS. BONSIGNORE: Do we anticipate 

8 that the presentation before the full Board on 

9 October 20th will proceed as scheduled?

10 MR. KATZ: Well, Linde isn't 

11 scheduled for October yet.

12 MS. BONSIGNORE: Oh, okay.

13 MR. KATZ: Because we don't have 

14 an agenda for the Board meeting yet.

15 MS. BONSIGNORE: I thought it was.

16 MR. KATZ: And it will really 

17 depend on what we hear about the time frame 

18 for feedback, as to whether it makes sense to 

19 schedule it for October or not.

20 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay, okay.

21 MR. KATZ: We certainly won't 

22 schedule it for the full Board unless we are 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

215

1 pretty confident that we will be ready at that 

2 point.

3 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay.

4 MR. KATZ: It seems like a 

5 stretch, given that there will need to be

6 another Work Group meeting.

7 MS. BONSIGNORE: Right. Okay. So 

8 it's not likely that it will be October?

9 MR. KATZ: It seems unlikely to me 

10 at this point that it will be then.

11 CHAIR ROESSLER: Could we even 

12 work it in with the Federal Register notice? 

13 Let's say that we find out next Tuesday that 

14 we can have another Work Group meeting. Then 

15 probably we can't even make it work before --

16 MR. KATZ: No, it's not a problem. 

17 I mean we can put things on the agenda that 

18 don't happen. The main issue is we want to 

19 have on the agenda things that might happen.

20 CHAIR ROESSLER: Well, I mean, is 

21 it even reasonable that we could --

22 MR. KATZ: So it is, yes.
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

216

1 CHAIR ROESSLER: -- have another 

2 Work Group meeting before the October --

3 MR. KATZ: Oh, yes. I mean we can 

4 have a Work Group meeting at the drop of a 

5 hat.

6 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay.

7 MR. KATZ: This is not a 

8 subcommittee. We don't need 30 days notice.

9 CHAIR ROESSLER: Yes, okay. So we 

10 don't need that? Okay.

11 MR. KATZ: We can meet as quickly 

12 as you guys can convene, once we are ready.

13 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay.

14 MR. KATZ: Absolutely.

15 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay.

16 MR. ELLIOTT: But the constraint 

17 on our side is that we are trying to marshal 

18 our resources for a variety of efforts. 

19 Certainly, Linde is not any less important 

20 than any of these other efforts, but you heard 

21 earlier that one of our technical contract 

22 support staff is now no longer viable for all 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

217

1 time, only on a limited consulting basis.

2 So we have to check with Joe and 

3 see what his available time frames are. That 

4 is what we are facing. We can't do everything 

5 to everybody's clock.

6 MR. KATZ: Absolutely. I think 

7 John was just expressing that, I guess, 

8 really, it is in your read as you go down 

9 this, if it starts to look like, well, there 

10 may be a real debate about the current path, 

11 and it would be great to have some thought 

12 going into an alternative path. So that, 

13 potentially, even if in the dialogue at the 

14 next Work Group meeting, if you decide it is 

15 really not going to work that route, but we 

16 could do this route, that that discussion 

17 could happen at the same Work Group meeting, 

18 if possible.

19 MR. RUTHERFORD: I think we can 

20 take that into consideration in our response.

21 MR. KATZ: Yes.

22 MR. RUTHERFORD: In our response, 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

218

1 if we feel that it is appropriate to consider 

2 that and be prepared for that, we can take 

3 that.

4 MR. ELLIOTT: That is the key, 

5 though: be prepared.

6 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes, yes.

7 MR. ELLIOTT: Because I don't want 

8 to come in and not have something fully 

9 fleshed out.

10 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes, I agree.

11 MR. ELLIOTT: And throw it on the 

12 table, and it gets shot down. It doesn't 

13 accomplish anything.

14 MR. RUTHERFORD: Absolutely.

15 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay, we are done 

16 with that, right?

17 MR. KATZ: We are.

18 CHAIR ROESSLER: That is as far as 

19 we can go. So now should we call on Steve to 

20 do his assessment report, August 2009?

21 MR. KATZ: And for folks on the 

22 phone, this is an evaluation of the status of 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

219

1 the site profile, implementation of site 

2 profile changes or TBD changes, based on prior 

3 Working Group work with OCAS.

4 DR. OSTROW: Okay, this is Steve.

5 The report we did was actually two 

6 things. Well, we looked at the disposition of 

7 the site profile issues, and this was actually 

8 in response to the SEC petitioner concerns. 

9 This is one of the concerns the SEC petition 

10 brought up.

11 The issue here we are looking at 

12 is that originally we identified, when we did 

13 our original site profile, a review of Rev 0 

14 of the site profile, we identified 22 issues. 

15 There was a whole long process -- you might 

16 say torturous -- that went back and forth with 

17 the Working Group, SC&A, NIOSH, lots of 

18 meetings, reports, and so forth, where we 

19 finally discussed all the issues and resolved 

20 everything.

21 What came up, though, in the 

22 petitioner's question, and also we had in 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

220

1 mind, too, that some of the 22 issues were 

2 closed, you might say, tentatively. In other 

3 words, they were closed based on a presumptive 

4 action by NIOSH. It was closed by NIOSH 

5 committing to do something, to revise some 

6 methodology or get new data, or clarify 

7 something.

8 So the question is, subsequent to 

9 our report, NIOSH issued Rev 1 of the site 

10 profile. So we went ahead and looked at Rev 1 

11 against our original findings to see, did 

12 NIOSH actually live up to its commitments to 

13 close out all these issues? So that is what 

14 this report, basically, looks at.

15 This, as I said, is in response to 

16 one of the petitioner questions. So, while 

17 this is a site profile review, it actually 

18 relates to the SEC claims also, the petitioner 

19 claims.

20 So we went through all the 

21 disposition of the 22 issues. I produced 

22 Table 1 of my report, which is a Linde issue 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

221

1 resolution chronology, where I tried to 

2 capture, based on all of the documents that I 

3 had -- and I hope I didn't miss any, anything 

4 important -- the history of all the documents, 

5 meetings, and so forth. I mean I had like 

6 piles of this at home and on my computer. I 

7 was trying to put it in order. This is what I 

8 came out with, beginning actually in 2005 and 

9 running up to late 2008, different meetings.

10 I produced, then, a Table 2, which 

11 is on the back of this document because it is 

12 a big table and it is in landscape mode. It 

13 runs on for pages. It has each of the 

14 individual issues identified, and listing in 

15 five subsequent columns following the 

16 disposition of each issue, through SC&A's 

17 original site profile review, NIOSH's initial 

18 response, our summary of an Advisory Board 

19 meeting.

20 NIOSH made a large response, a 

21 large document. We assessed it. Then, going 

22 up to the Las Vegas Work Group meeting. We 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

222

1 show how we've got all the issues closed.

2 Table 3 then is repeating what we 

3 just had in the last report. It is the exact 

4 same table.

5 This shows all the changes made 

6 between Rev 0 and Rev 1. I repeated it here 

7 because it was useful for this report also to 

8 identify all the changes made.

9 Finally, Table 4 -- which is 

10 upfront in the body of the report because it 

11 is a smaller table -- went through all the 

12 issues again. Of the 22 issues, I tried to 

13 identify which ones required verification by 

14 us that NIOSH did the correct follow-up 

15 action.

16 For example, Issue No. 1, I put 

17 down no verification was required. In this 

18 case, there was no action on NIOSH to amend 

19 the site profile.

20 Issue No. 2, for example, there 

21 was a verification required because NIOSH, in 

22 the course of all these meetings and reports, 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

223

1 committed to do something. I checked to see 

2 if they actually did do it.

3 So I went through all the 

4 commitments, all the documents. I would like 

5 to say that, as far as we see in our 

6 assessment, that NIOSH actually did live up to 

7 all of its commitments.

8 I forgot what the number is, but I 

9 think there were like 12 issues that required 

10 verification, and all of them were taken care 

11 of with the possible minor exception, I think, 

12 of Issue 17, which is the infamous burlap bag 

13 issue.

14 NIOSH in its site profile, Rev 1, 

15 has an appendix to it. I forget which one it 

16 is. Is it E? It is E, where they did exactly 

17 what they said they were going to do about 

18 treating the burlap bag issue, and we agree 

19 with it perfectly.

20 My only comment to it is that is 

21 not really referred to in the body of the 

22 text. I mean the appendix is there; it's 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

224

1 great, but there's no direction given to the 

2 dose reconstructor, what to do with it.

3 So this is a case where you did 

4 live up to the commitments, but you needed 

5 maybe another paragraph of explanation for the 

6 reviewer, just to first alert them that in the 

7 case of -- during that time, if it is found 

8 that he might have encountered these burlap 

9 bags that were sitting there in the residual 

10 period, then go to Appendix E and use the 

11 methodology there.

12 So this is a case where NIOSH's 

13 model is fine. We agreed with it perfectly. 

14 But it is a question about the directions to 

15 the dose reconstructor aren't there.

16 As far as we are concerned then, 

17 all the open issues are closed by NIOSH, with 

18 this one exception which just needs another 

19 paragraph of explanation somewhere.

20 So that is our finding. We've got 

21 a lot of pages going through the history of 

22 all this, but that is basically the 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

225

1 conclusion.

2 DR. MAURO: This is John.

3 This is the first time we did 

4 something like this; namely, bring something 

5 actually to the point of closure.

6 (Laughter.)

7 I didn't mean it that way. I'm 

8 sorry. I didn't mean it.

9 But I mean, you know, try to close 

10 the circle. It was very valuable. That is, 

11 yes, look at this, the whole process took many 

12 years, but all 22 issues, for all intents and 

13 purposes, have been resolved in the last 

14 version of the site profile. This is a first 

15 where we actually did that.

16 We have a document now, 

17 documentation for the record, for posterity, 

18 of how we got there.

19 CHAIR ROESSLER: I think that is 

20 very valuable, what you did, Steve, by putting 

21 everything together in one document for all of 

22 us.
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

226

1 Now what happens with your adding 

2 the paragraph? Does that mean that there's 

3 going to be a Revision 1A or?

4 MR. CRAWFORD: I don't think we 

5 would have any trouble doing that.

6 MR. RUTHERFORD: No, I think that 

7 is a simple change that we can do. That is 

8 just providing simple direction, as Steve 

9 mentioned. I don't see any problem with doing 

10 that and getting that taken care of relatively 

11 quickly. That doesn't seem like something 

12 that will be too difficult to do.

13 CHAIR ROESSLER: And we don't have 

14 to call it a new revision? Or you don't have 

15 to call it a new revision?

16 MR. RUTHERFORD: Well, I am 

17 wondering if we can do a page change or not on 

18 that. I have to check with the people that 

19 normally do that and see if we can just do a 

20 page change.

21 CHAIR ROESSLER: So you can let me 

22 know beforehand and we can depend on that.
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

227

1 MR. RUTHERFORD: And recognizing 

2 that we are going to have to do a revision to 

3 the site profile anyway, once this process is 

4 complete, because we have to, if ultimately 

5 everyone agrees at the end that the current 

6 model that we have developed in our evaluation 

7 report is okay, we still have to incorporate 

8 that into the site profile, because the site 

9 profile does not have that current methodology 

10 in it.

11 MS. BONSIGNORE: And that would 

12 mean that all the claimants for that time 

13 period whose claims were denied would have, 

14 presumably, some opportunity to have their 

15 claims redone?

16 MR. RUTHERFORD: That is correct. 

17 Yes, we would do a PER. We would do a PER to 

18 evaluate the effect to the claims that we have 

19 denied.

20 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay.

21 MR. ELLIOTT: The PER would 

22 identify those claims so affected.
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

228

1 MR. RUTHERFORD: Exactly. That's 

2 better. Right.

3 MR. ELLIOTT: I think it is a 

4 misconception that every claim would be 

5 reworked.

6 MR. RUTHERFORD: Right.

7 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay. How would 

8 claimants understand whether -- are claimants 

9 notified? I don't know how this process 

10 works. Are they notified that they --

11 MR. ELLIOTT: If we put forward a 

12 program evaluation review to the Department of 

13 Labor and a list of claims that we have 

14 screened to be affected by that -- and ask 

15 them to return them to us for rework -- DOL 

16 will notify those people.

17 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay.

18 MR. ELLIOTT: What we want to 

19 avoid is creating a sense of, well, further 

20 frustration and a sense that something is 

21 going to change for every claimant. Because 

22 we have learned in early program evaluation 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

229

1 reviews -- take the Super S, for example; a 

2 lot of claimants felt like they worked at one 

3 of the sites that were listed in a PER and 

4 their claim should now be compensable. That 

5 is not necessarily the case in all situations.

6 So our agreement and a 

7 coordination with DOL has evolved to the point 

8 where we identify those affected claims, seek 

9 a return of those from DOL. DOL notifies the 

10 claimant. We provide a revised dose 

11 reconstruction to the claimant, another 

12 opportunity for a closeout interview to 

13 understand what we have done, why we did it. 

14 Hopefully, they sign an OCAS-1 again, so that 

15 we can return it to the Department of Labor 

16 for another decision.

17 MS. BONSIGNORE: And the decision 

18 about which claims should be reevaluated is 

19 solely within the discretion of OCAS?

20 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes, right.

21 MS. BONSIGNORE: And SC&A has no 

22 review over that, over those decisions?
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

230

1 MR. ELLIOTT: Well, SC&A -- the 

2 Board, the Advisory Board -- has the ability 

3 to say we want to have a particular program 

4 evaluation review examined. I think there's 

5 been a couple of those.

6 MR. KATZ: There has been at least 

7 one.

8 MR. ELLIOTT: At least one. I 

9 don't know where that effort stands for future 

10 reviews.

11 MR. KATZ: So the Board can do 

12 that. SC&A has it within their contract to be 

13 able to do that. They have done it, I believe 

14 only one that I know of it, but maybe it has 

15 been more than one, yes, but where they did 

16 exactly what you are sort of asking about, 

17 where they looked at, what were the cases 

18 selected; are these the right cases that were 

19 selected, and so on?

20 In that case, they agreed that 

21 those cases were the right cases selected 

22 because those were the cases that would be 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

231

1 impacted by that change, the previous PER that 

2 Larry is talking, which was for lymphoma.

3 MS. BONSIGNORE: So is there an 

4 automatic review or -- ?

5 MR. KATZ: There is nothing 

6 automatic about this. Again, because there 

7 are many PERs and the Board will choose which 

8 are priority to review, as, again, part of 

9 what's on its plate for all of its review 

10 work.

11 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay.

12 MR. KATZ: So it is a 

13 discretionary thing.

14 MS. BONSIGNORE: Right. Yes, I 

15 get that.

16 I guess what I am trying to 

17 understand, you know, if there is a PER that 

18 identifies certain claimants and doesn't 

19 identify others, the way in which I can go 

20 about explaining that to a claimant who says, 

21 "Well, I worked with this guy. You know, we 

22 worked in this area during the same time 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

232

1 period. We both have similar -- you know, he 

2 has bladder cancer; I have bladder cancer. 

3 Why was his claim chosen and mine wasn't?"

4 MR. ELLIOTT: Well, in that 

5 example, I would hope that both bladder 

6 cancers got treated appropriately.

7 MR. KATZ: Exactly. They would. 

8 They would.

9 MR. ELLIOTT: They would. They 

10 should.

11 MS. BONSIGNORE: They should, 

12 right.

13 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes, they should.

14 MS. BONSIGNORE: But if they 

15 weren't, how --

16 MR. ELLIOTT: Well, if they 

17 weren't, then that implies that we missed the 

18 mark on screening, reviewing all the claims 

19 that were denied up to that point, and through 

20 that screening process, identifying those that 

21 were so affected.

22 For that to happen, that means we 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

233

1 have had a serious failure in our quality 

2 control approach on PERs.

3 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay.

4 MR. ELLIOTT: So I just don't see 

5 it happening myself.

6 MR. KATZ: But, certainly, a first 

7 recourse is, if any case which seems 

8 questionable to anybody comes up, is to 

9 contact OCAS and try to get to the bottom of

10 it.

11 MR. ELLIOTT: What we have done 

12 and why we missed it, if we missed it. If we 

13 didn't miss it, then we will explain why that 

14 particular claim doesn't fit into this 

15 particular PER.

16 MR. KATZ: Now if you had a number 

17 of these experiences and were not feeling like 

18 it is making sense to you, the screening 

19 process, I mean that would be something to 

20 comment to the Board. It would be an added 

21 reason why the Board might consider evaluating 

22 that PER.
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

234

1 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay, but in 

2 terms of the individual claimants, how would 

3 they go about appealing the fact, you know, 

4 the example that I gave?

5 MR. ELLIOTT: Let's say they were 

6 left out.

7 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay.

8 MR. ELLIOTT: They were left out 

9 of this process. They didn't have their claim 

10 recalled --

11 MS. BONSIGNORE: Right.

12 MR. ELLIOTT: -- and sent back to 

13 NIOSH for rework.

14 MS. BONSIGNORE: Right.

15 MR. ELLIOTT: They could approach 

16 DOL and ask DOL to reopen a claim under this 

17 PER. What we have coordinated and agreed with 

18 DOL would happen in that situation, DOL would 

19 turn to us and say, give us an explanation of 

20 why we shouldn't return this to you.

21 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay.

22 MR. ELLIOTT: That can be given to 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

235

1 the claimant then from DOL.

2 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay. All right, 

3 thank you.

4 MR. KATZ: Let me just say, 

5 Antoinette, we tasked SC&A, I mean I did, in 

6 consultation with Gen and Paul Ziemer, with 

7 doing this report on your behest.

8 MS. BONSIGNORE: Right.

9 MR. KATZ: I know you have just 

10 received it today because I just gave it to 

11 you today.

12 MS. BONSIGNORE: Right.

13 MR. KATZ: It just cleared for PA. 

14 But, certainly, if you have feedback about 

15 the report, concerns, issues, what have you, 

16 let us know.

17 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay.

18 MR. KATZ: Because that would be 

19 something else that, then, we can take up down 

20 the road.

21 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay. Right. 

22 Okay. Thank you.
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

236

1 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay, I think we 

2 have finished, then, Steve with your report.

3 DR. OSTROW: Yes. It was short 

4 and sweet.

5 CHAIR ROESSLER: Yes, very good.

6 Chris, do you want to respond? We 

7 have you on the agenda to respond to that, but 

8 I think maybe you have already done that.

9 MR. CRAWFORD: I think it is 

10 pretty straightforward.

11 Just for Steve's knowledge -- 

12 because on the practical end I have done dose 

13 reconstructions and I review them every day, 

14 practically -- the site profile documents 

15 aren't actually a recipe for doing dose 

16 reconstructions, unfortunately for the DRs, 

17 because it would be much nicer to have a more 

18 pointed document in that regard.

19 They are really a source document. 

20 The DR is responsible for knowing what is in 

21 the appendices as well as in the main text. 

22 So there is no problem with putting in the 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

237

1 phrase you suggested. I just wanted to 

2 reassure you that people aren't simply 

3 overlooking Appendix E because it is not there 

4 in the main text.

5 DR. OSTROW: No, I realized that 

6 totally. It was just that you have the text 

7 talking about doses in the residual period. 

8 Since you have the text there, you ought to 

9 just refer to Appendix E.

10 MR. CRAWFORD: Sure.

11 DR. MAURO: This is John. I may 

12 be able to elaborate on that a little bit.

13 In the past, we have commented on 

14 site profiles a year or two after they were 

15 published or even longer. We would point out 

16 that, gee, it looks like this site profile 

17 should make reference to this OTIB or that 

18 OTIB, or whatever that came out subsequent to 

19 that, in order to provide a complete direction 

20 or guidance to the dose reconstructor.

21 That was a matter of great 

22 discussion. We ended up -- and SC&A 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

238

1 completely agreed -- that it is really not 

2 practical for every site profile to make 

3 reference to every new OTIB that comes out. 

4 It just can't be done.

5 But, as long as there is a 

6 training program and if there is a QA process 

7 to make sure that every dose reconstruction 

8 that is done for, let's say in this case, 

9 Linde, for example -- a perfect example would 

10 be Linde -- if there was a dose reconstruction 

11 that was going to be done, that, in fact, it 

12 does address all of the issues that are not 

13 only addressed and identified in the site 

14 profile, but just about every other OTIB that 

15 is out there that may have bearing.

16 So I would say that it would be 

17 great for the site profile to make reference 

18 to the appendix that addresses the burlap 

19 bags, but in keeping with the previous 

20 conclusion, it is not something that is a 

21 requirement, that every site profile has to 

22 make sure it references every possible other 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

239

1 OTIB or procedure that might have 

2 applicability.

3 It was decided, it was judged by 

4 the Board that, no, that would be asking too 

5 much. It is just not practical within this 

6 type of project.

7 MR. ELLIOTT: We would constantly 

8 be revising.

9 DR. MAURO: Yes, it would be 

10 impossible. And SC&A fully agrees with that.

11 MR. ELLIOTT: Every time we come 

12 out with a new TBD or TIB, we would have to 

13 cross-reference it with those sites that it 

14 impacts on. So it is handled in training 

15 sessions.

16 CHAIR ROESSLER: So it seems we 

17 have finished.

18 MS. BONSIGNORE: I actually have 

19 two more questions about the PER for the time 

20 period from '47 through '53 that you mentioned 

21 during the ANWAG teleconference. You said it 

22 was about two months out?
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

240

1 MR. RUTHERFORD: I don't know.

2 MR. ELLIOTT: She is talking about 

3 -- were you sitting in that meeting?

4 MR. KATZ: No. I was on the 

5 phone.

6 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes. Well, it is 

7 farther out than that, I guess, because we are 

8 not through with this process here.

9 MS. BONSIGNORE: Right.

10 MR. ELLIOTT: We are through with 

11 the site profile, but if there is anything 

12 that comes out of this deliberative process --

13 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay.

14 MR. ELLIOTT: -- that would affect 

15 the site profile, that will drive the PER.

16 We finished the site profile. We 

17 know what changes there are that are going to 

18 affect denied claims that would result in a 

19 PER.

20 MS. BONSIGNORE: Right.

21 MR. ELLIOTT: What we don't know 

22 is what additional changes might come out of 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

241

1 this.

2 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay.

3 MR. ELLIOTT: So, rather than do 

4 multiple PERs --

5 MS. BONSIGNORE: Right. Okay.

6 MR. ELLIOTT: -- we would rather 

7 push through this --

8 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay. I've got 

9 you.

10 MR. ELLIOTT: -- and get it nailed 

11 down, so that we can do one PER.

12 MS. BONSIGNORE: I've got you.

13 MR. ELLIOTT: Right now, we are 

14 set; two months away, we could do a PER on the 

15 site profile changes --

16 MS. BONSIGNORE: Right.

17 MR. ELLIOTT: -- that we have in 

18 hand.

19 MS. BONSIGNORE: Right.

20 MR. ELLIOTT: Did that help? I'm 

21 sorry.

22 MS. BONSIGNORE: Yes.
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

242

1 MR. ELLIOTT: I'm sorry.

2 MS. BONSIGNORE: Yes. No, it 

3 does. It is just, from what you said during 

4 the teleconference, you said it was about one 

5 to two months out. So I had let the claimants 

6 know that.

7 MR. ELLIOTT: Oh.

8 MS. BONSIGNORE: But that's all 

9 right.

10 MR. ELLIOTT: Well, I mean we 

11 could do that, but then we are going to have 

12 another, it looks to me like we may have 

13 another go at it.

14 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay.

15 MR. ELLIOTT: Hopefully, in two 

16 months' time or three months' time, maybe we 

17 can get through this and know exactly what the 

18 PER should entail.

19 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay.

20 CHAIR ROESSLER: You had another 

21 question?

22 MS. BONSIGNORE: Yes. The other 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

243

1 question was about SEC 106 that failed to 

2 qualify. I don't know, Steve, if any of that 

3 was addressed in this report.

4 DR. OSTROW: No. No, it wasn't. 

5 I really don't know why it wasn't qualified. 

6 I mean I'm saying, literally, I don't know 

7 why. It is not that I'm questioning it; I 

8 just didn't look into the process.

9 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay. Because I 

10 believe I had requested that that be evaluated 

11 along with changes to the site profile.

12 MR. KATZ: I don't recall your 

13 request, but certainly SC&A is not tasked to 

14 evaluate the qualification of petitions, 

15 because the Board, in fact, is not a reviewer 

16 of the qualification of petitions. I mean, 

17 when the regulations were put out, the Board 

18 had extensive discussion about whether or not 

19 to be involved in the qualification of 

20 petitions, and the Board did not believe it 

21 was appropriate for the Board to be part of 

22 the qualification process.
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

244

1 MS. BONSIGNORE: Isn't there a 

2 Working Group?

3 MR. KATZ: So there was a Working 

4 Group that has looked at how that has gone in 

5 the past. That Working Group has been 

6 disbanded, but it did take a point-in-time 

7 look at a whole large number of petitions that 

8 have not qualified for a variety of reasons 

9 and examined what those reasons were and what 

10 it felt. It came out with final findings 

11 around that process and recommendations.

12 MR. ELLIOTT: We have employed 

13 those recommendations.

14 MR. KATZ: So the Board can at any 

15 time reassemble a Work Group to consider the 

16 qualification of petitions, but it doesn't 

17 have one actively operating right now.

18 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay. So, in 

19 terms of any further recourse in terms of SEC 

20 106, there is none?

21 MR. ELLIOTT: There is if you 

22 identify additional information --
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

245

1 MS. BONSIGNORE: Right.

2 MR. ELLIOTT: -- that we have not 

3 yet examined.

4 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay.

5 MR. ELLIOTT: But, at this point, 

6 I think you had an appeal, an administrative 

7 review. You got the results of that.

8 MS. BONSIGNORE: Actually, I was 

9 denied the --

10 MR. ELLIOTT: Denied the review.

11 MS. BONSIGNORE: -- the Review 

12 Board report, which is --

13 MR. ELLIOTT: Or you couldn't get 

14 a copy of the Review Board report?

15 MS. BONSIGNORE: Right, and I've 

16 appealed that. It is with the CDC FOIA 

17 office, and I haven't received any disposition 

18 on that to date.

19 MR. KATZ: If you would send me an 

20 email about that and the timing of when you 

21 asked for it, and so on, maybe I can help you 

22 out with that.
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

246

1 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay.

2 CHAIR ROESSLER: So, before we 

3 end, could I summarize the action items to 

4 remind everybody and make sure that I have 

5 them right?

6 MR. KATZ: Sure.

7 CHAIR ROESSLER: I have action 

8 items for OCAS, for SC&A, and for the Work 

9 Group.

10 First, with regard to OCAS, you 

11 are going to respond to the SC&A June 8th 

12 report. There were 10 items summarized in 

13 there which really we can put into three 

14 groups: the bounding of the radon exposures; 

15 the inhalation, which includes the uranium, 

16 radium, and thorium -- and under that one 

17 would cover one of Antoinette's concerns, 

18 which was the factor of eight -- and the third 

19 grouping was the renovation period.

20 Sort of as an aside, you are going 

21 to merge your tables in the PER.

22 With regard to timing on that, you 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

247

1 are going to evaluate this and let us know 

2 next week, before the conference call, not 

3 only when you can do it, but you are also 

4 going to let us know if you are going to need 

5 to use that fallback option that Dr. Mauro 

6 brought up.

7 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes. Well, we 

8 are taking that fallback position into 

9 consideration. If, ultimately, in our final 

10 resolution of these issues we feel that our 

11 position may not be as strong as we thought, 

12 then we can look at that fallback position, 

13 and we may address that in our response, 

14 depending on where we come out.

15 CHAIR ROESSLER: And then the 

16 other item, you are going to do the site 

17 profile, change the additional paragraph 

18 recommended by Steve.

19 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes.

20 CHAIR ROESSLER: That is all I 

21 have for OCAS.

22 SC&A, you are going to prepare an 
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

248

1 addendum to your report.

2 DR. OSTROW: Yes.

3 CHAIR ROESSLER: And you will have 

4 that within two weeks.

5 DR. OSTROW: Yes.

6 CHAIR ROESSLER: Then for the Work 

7 Group, we will set up a meeting after we get 

8 the report from OCAS.

9 MEMBER BEACH: And after SC&A has 

10 time to review it.

11 MR. KATZ: No, no, no.

12 MEMBER BEACH: No?

13 MR. KATZ: She means just after we 

14 get a report from OCAS saying when they think 

15 they will have their work done.

16 CHAIR ROESSLER: Then we will have 

17 to figure out --

18 MR. KATZ: This Friday.

19 CHAIR ROESSLER: Oh, this Friday?

20 MR. KATZ: Because Labor Day, they 

21 won't be there.

22 CHAIR ROESSLER: That's right.
.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

249

1 So have I covered everything?

2 (No response.)

3 Do we have any further questions 

4 or anything we need to do?

5 (No response.)

6 Does anybody on the phone -- Mike, 

7 do you have any comments?

8 MEMBER GIBSON: No, not at this 

9 time.

10 MR. KATZ: I want to just also 

11 thank Antoinette for coming to this meeting. 

12 I think it makes an enormous difference to 

13 have you here, and we appreciate that.

14 MS. BONSIGNORE: Thank you.

15 CHAIR ROESSLER: Thank you all. 

16 Thank you for your reports. In the absence of 

17 one of the key players here, you pulled it 

18 together.

19 MR. KATZ: We are adjourned.

20 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

21 matter went off the record at 2:30 p.m.)

22